David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again in strong support of my no Washington exemption from ObamaCare amendment. I have refiled it on the CR, which is before us, the spending bill, and it is a germane amendment as I filed it to the CR. It is amendment No. 1983. We are on a timetable--a collision course--where unless we act, a horrible policy and illegal Obama administration rule will go into effect, and so it is important that we vote, we act, and we do that now. That is why as soon as we came back from the August recess, I brought this to the attention of the Senate and the Congress and the country and I demanded a vote. It wasn't my choice to be on that tight timetable. It certainly wasn't my choice on the administration issue, a draft illegal rule, but that is where we are, and so we must vote and act before October 1. After being blocked out of a vote on the previous matter on the floor, the energy efficiency bill, and after being blocked out for 2 weeks by the distinguished majority leader and others, I bring it again in the context of this spending bill as a germane amendment numbered 1983 to this spending bill. The principle is clear, and to me it is the first principle of a democracy--in our case, the United States of America. What is good for America should be good for Washington, and what is applied to America should absolutely be applied in the same way to Washington across the board and certainly including ObamaCare. We had a debate about that several years ago during the ObamaCare debate. Actually, that concept won out, and we were able to add a Grassley amendment to the bill, which was passed into final law. I was a strong supporter of that language. I was somewhat amazed that we got it included, but it did go through the democratic process, and it is now part of the law, part of the statute. That law says clearly and unequivocally that every Member of Congress and all official congressional staff have to go to the exchange for their health care. They have to go to the same fallback plan as is there for the American people under ObamaCare. I advocated for that strongly since the very beginning of the ObamaCare debate. Whatever the fallback plan for America is, that should be the plan for Washington. There should be no other choices, no special privileges or exemptions or subsidies for Washington. That was part of the statute that passed into law, but 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 it passed, a lot of folks on Capitol Hill read that provision and said: Oh, you know what, we can't live with this. We can't let this stand. We need to ``fix this.'' So there was furious scheming and furious lobbying to fix that simple concept that what applies to America should apply to Washington. Where that ended up after months of scheming and lobbying was the President of the United States, President Obama, became personally involved. This was confirmed in numerous news reports. He had his administration issue a special rule to save Congress from this horrible fate that is being visited on at least 8 million Americans. As Congress was leaving for the August recess--conveniently getting out of town and away from the scene of the crime--the Obama administration issued this draft rule. In my opinion, it is clearly and unequivocally illegal because it is in conflict with the language of the statute. The rule does two things: First of all, even though the statute clearly says that every Member of Congress and all official congressional staff go to the exchange, the draft rule says: We don't know what official staff is, so we are going to leave that up to every individual Member of Congress to decide who on his or her staff is official staff for purposes of this provision and we are never going to second guess them. So in theory, a Member of Congress can say: My committee staff is part of the official staff; my leadership staff is part of the official staff. In fact, in theory, under this proposed rule a Member of Congress can say: Nobody on my staff is ``official staff'' for purposes of this provision. OPM has made it clear that they are not going to second guess that. That is ridiculous on its face. Second, the rule says that for Members and any staff who do get to go to the exchange, they get to take a big taxpayer-funded subsidy with them--a subsidy that is completely unavailable to any other American at that income level going to the exchange. That is not in the statute at all. That is contrary to the statute, the letter and spirit of the law. That is completely contrary to it. Again, that is what provoked me to act with many other Members. I wish to recognize and thank all of the cosponsors of this important legislation on the Senate side and also Congressmen DeSantis of Florida and all House cosponsors of identical legislation on the House side. Our fix is simple, basic, and important. It is, first of all, let's live by the law with regard to Congress. So every Member of Congress and all congressional official staff have to go to the exchange as mandated by law with no special deal, exemption, or subsidy. They can only have what is available to other Americans going to the exchange. The whole purpose of that language was for Congress to feel the dislocation, inconvenience, and experience of millions of other Americans going to the exchange--8 million or more Americans going there against their will. They had health care. They had employer- provided health care. They heard the President say: If you have coverage you like, you can keep it, and they found out that was a big lie. So now they are losing that and going to the exchange. The whole purpose of the language was that Congress walk in their shoes. This amendment goes further and applies the same principle of fairness to the administration. It says the President, the Vice President, and all of their political appointees will do the same thing--go to the exchange for their health care, just like every other American does, with no special deals, exemptions, subsidies, and no special rules. Again, this is very time-sensitive because this rule is set to be made final October 1. That is not my choice. I think the rule is flatout illegal. That is a decision and action by the administration, but it does demand that we vote and act now. That is why as soon as we came back from the August recess and went back into session, I filed the fix and demanded a proper up-or-down vote. Unfortunately, that was blocked out for 2 weeks by the distinguished majority leader. That is why I am on the floor again in the context of this spending bill. It is very appropriate to have the debate on this spending bill. We are talking about spending. I filed it as a germane amendment to this spending bill, and we need a full debate and vote on this matter before October 1. Interestingly, in the previous bill, after blocking me out of any vote, the distinguished majority leader said he had no problem with this clean up-or-down vote. I guess he said that in theory because it never happened in practice. This is a perfect and appropriate time to have that up-or-down vote. It won't delay anything. It is perfectly appropriate to have it on the spending bill. This is a germane amendment. I urge us to vote and act and not block out this debate and not block out this vote. My request is as simple and basic and straightforward as that. I think it is consistent with the distinguished majority leader's promise that we would have a vote. He said that. Again, that must have been in theory because he blocked it in practice. Mr. President, in that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that it be in order to call up my amendment No. 1983.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this hour of time for the Republicans be divided as follows: I ask for 12 minutes for myself and then Senator Hatch for 15 minutes, Senator Portman for 10 minutes, Senator Coats for 10 minutes, and Senator Toomey for 10 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I think that is very unfortunate. It is very inconsistent with what the distinguished majority leader said. We need a debate and a vote on this matter. It should happen before October 1--and it will happen, I guarantee that. I don't know when. I don't know if it will be before October 1, but it will happen. We will have this debate and vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield for questions and comments without yielding the floor?

Mr. VITTER. I appreciate the Senator's comments, and certainly his correct recitation about what the real impact of ObamaCare is across the country, particularly for hard-working men and women. And the Senator is right. These descriptive phrases such as ``nightmare'' and another one is ``train wreck,'' are not his words, they are not my words. They are actually words from supporters of the law. ``Nightmare,'' as the Senator pointed out, comes from the leader of the Teamsters, a very powerful organization on the Democratic side politically that strongly supported the law. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that helped write the law called ObamaCare implementation a ``train wreck'' a few months ago. Not coincidentally, that was right before he announced he wasn't running for reelection. I appreciate the notation of those descriptions from folks on the Democratic side of the aisle, from folks who helped pass ObamaCare. This is clear proof that this is not ready for prime time, causing real pain and dislocation to hard-working Americans: job loss, folks being moved into part-time work, jobs not being created, folks losing the health care they have now which they enjoy. But did the Senator know, I think the leader of the Teamsters, James Hoffa, is even more upset today than he was when he wrote that letter because in the intervening time something else has happened, which is that the administration bailed out Congress with a special exemption, with a special subsidy, with a special rule, hasn't helped the working- class Americans Mr. Hoffa represents through the Teamsters, but has bailed out Congress? That is what I have an amendment on the CR about. It would be a germane amendment. I will present it. Unfortunately, it seems clear that the plan is for the majority leader to block out all amendments, including mine, except the ones he chooses that would take out the defunding language from the House-passed bill. Again, what I am talking about is a special bailout exemption subsidy for Congress. This goes back to the original ObamaCare debate, and our distinguished colleague Senator Grassley of Iowa proposed language which so many of us strongly supported that said every Member of Congress and all congressional staff would have to go to the same fallback plan under ObamaCare as there is for all Americans. First it was called the public option, then eventually the exchange. Amazingly, happily--I was pleasantly surprised at the time, that language got in the bill and was passed into law. That became a classic case of what Nancy Pelosi said: We have to pass the bill to figure out what is in it. Because after that language got in the bill and passed into law, then lots of folks around Capitol Hill read that provision and they said, Oh, you know what, they said, Wait a minute. We can't live with this. We can't deal with this, because we are going to be in the same fallback plan as there is for every other American with no special treatment. We can't deal with that. Then, because of that, furious lobbying started on the Obama administration, folks such as the distinguished majority leader talking directly to President Obama himself, saying, We need a bailout. We need a special fix, a special rule just for us. Sure enough, that lobbying yielded results. By many press reports, President Obama got personally involved to ensure that a special rule was issued by his administration. The draft version of it was issued conveniently just after Congress left town for the August recess and got away from the scene of the crime. That draft rule is completely improper, completely illegal, because it goes beyond the statute and is inconsistent with the statute, but it is a special exemption for Congress. It essentially does two things: First, even though the ObamaCare statute explicitly says that every Member of Congress, all congressional official staff have to go to the exchange, the rule basically negates that in a way and says, Well, we don't know what ``official staff'' means, so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member to decide which of their staff is official and which is not, who has to go to the exchange and who doesn't. The statute doesn't say that. The statute is very clear: All congressional official staff have to go to the exchange. There is no discretion to individual Members. Then the second thing that this special rule, this special exemption does is even more egregious. It says, Oh, and by the way, whoever does go to the exchange, whatever Members and whatever congressional staff do go to the exchange, they get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy that follows them there. That is not in the statute. That is nowhere in ObamaCare. That is nowhere in that Grassley provision as passed into law. In fact, there are other sections of ObamaCare that make it crystal clear that employees who go to the exchange lose their previous subsidy from their large employer that they may have enjoyed previously. That is clear in the law, completely inconsistent with this illegal rule made up out of thin air. So Washington is getting a special exemption, a special bailout, a special subsidy completely unavailable to other Americans. That is not right, and that is why I have an amendment. I tried to present it last week, was blocked out by the majority leader. I am here again on the CR. It is important, it is necessary we vote, and we should, before October 1, when this illegal rule will otherwise go into effect. My amendment is simple. It negates that illegal rule. It says, Yes, every Member of Congress, all congressional staff. And, oh, by the way, other Washington policymakers--the President, the Vice President, all of their political appointees--have to go to the exchange with no special treatment, no special exemption, no special subsidy unavailable to other Americans. So if you are a lower paid staff member and you qualify by your income for a subsidy available to every other American who goes to the exchange at that income level, fine. That is certainly available. That is equal treatment. That is Washington being treated like the rest of America, but no special exemption or bailout or subsidy, only those available to all other Americans going to the exchange. We need a vote on this provision. It is directly relevant to the CR. It is directly relevant to this debate. This illegal Obama administration rule will go into effect October 1 unless we act. That is why I demanded a timely vote last week. Unfortunately, it was blocked out by the majority leader. After threatening and bullying did not work, he claimed he had no objection to the vote. But still he did not let it happen. Here we are in the CR debate and that is why we need that debate and that vote now. What the problem is, and it is clearly the plan of the majority leader, it is clear this upcoming cloture vote would block all that out again. The majority leader would get his select amendments to take out of the House bill the provision that defunds ObamaCare but nobody else would get any other amendment. I would not get a vote on my amendment. There are plenty of other relevant and germane amendments. We would not have votes on those. That is the plan being laid out for this week and that is what voting yes on cloture on the bill will enable. So I cannot do that. I commend the Senator from Texas for helping lead this fight, helping point out the dangers and the tragedies of ObamaCare, particularly for working men and women and also for supporting the broader effort to make sure, however America is treated, Washington should be treated exactly the same. That should be the first rule of democracy. The Founders talked about that basic principle, Federalist Paper No. 57 by Madison. He specifically talks about this basic principle: Whatever is good for America needs to be good for Washington. Whatever is applied to those who are ruled needs to be applied equally in full force and in the same way to those who make up the rules. That is what this specific part of this debate is all about. I again thank the Senator from Texas for his leadership on this and the general issue. I ask, does he think, now that that special exemption has come out since the Hoffa letter, would he guess Mr. Hoffa is more or less upset now that Washington has been protected but the working Americans Mr. Hoffa represents are still in the dire straits described in that letter?

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator also acknowledge that given that history on this issue, given that illegal rule to exempt Congress, to have a special bailout, a special subsidy for Congress that the Obama administration is putting into law without valid authority, and given that we are debating and acting on a spending bill this week, we should be voting on that? We should get a vote on my amendment and the Cruz amendment together to block that illegal rule this week? The majority leader said he had no problem with a vote on that, in theory. He said that last week. He should allow a vote on this crucial amendment, which will be filed to the bill, which will even be a germane amendment on this spending bill this week, before this illegal congressional exemption rule goes into effect. Would the Senator agree with me?

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Senator. Does he acknowledge that he understands, as I do, that as this monstrosity goes into effect October 1 and as it has all of these really devastating impacts on individuals and small businesses, under a special illegal rule from the Obama administration, Congress and Washington get an exemption; they get a special pass; they get a special deal no other American gets under the law?

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I understand the floor leader is doing that for the majority leader and I think that is very unfortunate. If the distinguished majority leader agrees to a vote in principle, we need a vote in reality. I said at the time when he agreed to it in principle that is interesting but I did not think it would happen in reality, and sure enough, this week that is correct, it has not happened. I think the majority leader, frankly, is very concerned about this vote. That is why he and others actually relied on threats and intimidation to try to avoid this vote. That did not work. It is not going to work. I am coming back with this amendment. I am coming back with this bill. He has agreed to a vote in principle, so let's have a vote. Clearly, not from my doing, but because of the illegal Obama administration rule, that vote is timely now. That vote has to reasonably happen before October 1, which is why I proposed that unanimous consent. That is a way to have the vote which the majority leader agreed to in principle without disrupting any other business on the Senate floor. It would literally take 60 minutes of debate and a 15-minute vote. I am sorry that was not accepted by the majority leader, but needless to say I will be back with my bill, with my amendment. The American people deserve a vote because, however it comes out, the American people should be able to know what Senators will stand through that vote with Washington and what Senators will stand with America. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again to talk about the urgent need, as October 1 approaches, to vote on a ``no Washington exemption from ObamaCare'' amendment or bill. Again, this need isn't of my creating. I wish it weren't here, but it is because of an illegal rule issued by the Obama administration to completely reverse the clear language on the subject in ObamaCare. I will back up and give a brief history. During the ObamaCare debate, a proposal was made by many of us, led by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. The proposal was simple: Every Member of Congress and all congressional staff should live under the most onerous provisions of ObamaCare. Specifically, we should have to get our health care from the exchanges where millions of Americans are going against their will, having lost in many cases the previous health care coverage from employers that they enjoyed. So Senator Grassley said that is what Washington should have to live with, and there was explicit, specific language put in ObamaCare to that point for Congress--that every Member of Congress and all congressional staff have to go to the exchange. The intent behind this was crystal clear. As the Senator said, ``The more that Congress experiences the laws that pass, the better.'' I agree with that. I agreed with it then, and I agree with it now. Amazingly, that provision got in the final version of ObamaCare. Then I guess it was a classic example, if you will, of what Nancy Pelosi said: ``We have to pass the law to figure out what is in it.'' It did pass. Folks around Capitol Hill did figure out what is in it with regard to that section and they said: Oh, you know what. We have to go to the exchanges. We don't like that. That is going to create out-of-pocket expense. We don't like that. Immediately, furious lobbying started, continued for some time, and sure enough, as a result President Obama personally intervened. He was personally involved, and his administration issued a rule on the subject right as Congress safely had left town for the August recess. That rule said two things, basically. No. 1, it said this official congressional staff--we don't know who that is, so every Member of Congress will get to decide what staff, if any, under their employment, will have to go to the exchange. That is ridiculous. I think that is ludicrous on its face. That is not what the statute says at all. It says ``all official congressional staff'' and every Member of Congress should not be able to decide differently, Member by Member, whether anyone at all on their staff has to go to the exchange. But the second part of this illegal rule is even more interesting. It said whoever does go to the exchange, in terms of Members and staff, gets to take their very generous taxpayer-funded subsidy from the Federal employee health benefits plan with them. The ObamaCare statute doesn't say that at all and, in fact, a different part of the ObamaCare statute says exactly the opposite. It is about employees in general who go to the exchange. It says when an employee goes to the exchange he or she loses any previous employer- provided subsidy. That is section 1512. That is explicit in the ObamaCare statute. This special rule for Washington is illegal, flatout illegal and contrary to the statute in my opinion. But it goes into effect October 1 and that is why my colleagues and I who support the ``no Washington exemption'' language had to take action, had to fight for a vote now. We need this debate and vote now, before October 1. That is what it is all about. As I said, my distinguished colleague from Iowa who authored this language could not have been more clear: ``The more that Congress experiences the laws it passes, the better.'' Also, employment lawyers who have looked at the statute agree with me that there is no big subsidy we should be able to take with us to the exchange. For instance, David Ermer, a lawyer who has represented insurers in the Federal employee program for 30 years, said, ``I do not think Members of Congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in the exchanges under the existing law.'' That was in the New York Times. Many other employment lawyers have said the same because it is crystal clear from the statute. As National Review Online reported: Most employment lawyers interpreted that to mean that the taxpayer-funded Federal health insurance subsidies dispensed to those on Congress's payroll--which now range from $5,000 to $11,000 a year--would have to end. Yes. That is the clear language and the clear legislative history of the statute. Yet we have all this hocus-pocus to do exactly the opposite, contrary to the law. As the Heritage Foundation said: Obama's action to benefit the political class is the latest example of this administration doing whatever it wants, regardless of whether it has the authority to do so. The Office of Personnel Management overstepped its authority when it carried out the President's request to exempt Congress from the requirements of the health care law. Changing law is the responsibility of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Also, the Heritage Foundation said: Washington's political class and allied big special interest lobbyists are responsible. And until this bad law is fully repealed, the President's team and Congress should submit fully to its multiple and costly requirements, just like everyone else. The National Review Online has echoed the same, and they are right: Under behind-the-scenes pressure from members of Congress in both parties, President Obama used the quiet of the August recess to personally order the Office of Personnel Management, which supervises federal employment issues, to interpret the law so as to retain the generous congressional benefits. The Wall Street Journal opined: . . . If Republicans want to show that they ``stand for something,'' this is it. If they really are willing to do ``whatever it takes'' to oppose this law, there would be no more meaningful way to prove it. This is why we are here at this moment and this is why it is so important and necessary to have this debate and this vote now. I am very happy that at least some of my colleagues have properly recognized that, and that includes the distinguished majority floor manager of this bill, and have agreed in principle to this vote. The distinguished majority leader Senator Reid has agreed in principle to this vote. But it is interesting that at least in his case, although we have some agreement in principle, we have no vote and, frankly, I am not surprised. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you agree to a vote, then you have to have a vote. We need to have a vote. We need to have a vote by October 1 and I am going to keep fighting for a vote. That is basic fairness, to deal with this illegal rule. Again, the timing is here and now and that is not of my doing. I did not favor the illegal rule that makes the issue come before us. I did not favor the October 1 deadline. That should never have happened at all. But it is before us and that deadline is before us because of the illegal rule from the Obama administration. That is why we need a vote. We need a vote before October 1. As I said, the distinguished majority leader says he will permit a vote. He says that in theory but it does not happen in practice. Again we wait and wait and wait and demand a vote. It does not have to be on this bill. I will continue to come back. I will file this amendment with regard to the CR. That is a perfect place to have this debate and vote or we can do it as a stand-alone bill. We can do that easily next week, before October 1. We can do it without disrupting any other floor business, without delaying any other action with regard to the CR or anything else. In that spirit, let me ask a unanimous consent in that regard. I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, September 25, 2013, at 10 a.m., the Senate discharge the Senate Committee on Finance from consideration of my bill, the No Exemption For Washington from ObamaCare Act, proceed immediately to consideration of that bill, S. 1497; that without any intervening motions or debate, the Senate proceed with 60 minutes of debate on the bill evenly divided and controlled by the majority leader and myself; that the bill not be subject to any amendments, points of order or motions to commit; and that after debate has expired the bill be engrossed for a third reading, read a third time, and the Senate immediately vote on passage, subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; and that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table following that vote.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished majority floor leader, and I accept them. I know they are sincere in terms of his actions and in terms of his involvement. My point, of course, was not about him. My point is I don't think it was an accident that we never got to yes in practice. I don't think that was an accident at all. I don't think it was an accident from the point of view of the majority leader. I don't think it was an accident from others' point of view. If we want a clear glimpse into their true approach, we have to look at the amendments they floated last week, which were literally about threats, intimidation, and bribery. So that is a pretty clear window on where they are coming from. It is certainly not where the distinguished floor leader is coming from. Let me close by saying there is one more point of reality I would underscore, and that is this: In the Senate there is one Member who can virtually guarantee that a vote happens, and that is the majority leader. He has promised an up-or-down vote on this before October 1 in theory. He has the power to clearly make that happen one way or the other in practice, so we will see if he does. It is as simple as that. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I hope we are moving to votes on this bill, to votes on our ``no Washington exemption'' language. I certainly continue to encourage that and continue to support that. The reason that is important, particularly on this ``no Washington exemption'' language is because unless we act on October 1, what I think is a completely illegal rule from the Obama administration that does create a special Washington exemption will go into effect. First of all, I think it is very unfortunate, sure is frustrating, that I and others have to be here on the floor blocking an illegal rule in the first place. Because, you see, on this point ObamaCare is clear. The actual statutory language of ObamaCare says clearly that all Members of Congress and their congressional staff go to the exchange. It is crystal clear about that. All of us. In another section, section 1512, it also says clearly any folks going to the exchange lose their employer-based subsidy. That is crystal clear. Chuck Grassley, our distinguished colleague, authored this provision. He could not have been more clear about where he was coming from about the intent. He said at the time, ``The more that Congress experiences the laws it passes, the better.'' He is exactly right. That is what this is all about. That is what that provision is all about. Legal experts such as David Ermer, a lawyer who has represented insurers in the Federal employee program for 30 years, said clearly, ``I do not think members of Congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in the exchanges under existing law.'' That is very clear, particularly from the precise language of the ObamaCare statute. So it is pretty darn frustrating that my colleagues and I who are pushing this ``no Washington exemption'' language have to be here doing this to begin with. It is all because of an illegal rule to bail out Congress, to create out of thin air a Washington exemption that will go into effect, unless we act, October 1. So that is why we must act. That is why we must vote in a timely way. The first thing this illegal rule says is, we do not know what staff are covered so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to even decide which, if any, of their staff have to go to the exchange. That is a ludicrous interpretation of the clear statutory language. It is ludicrous on its face, because that language says ``all official staff.'' Secondly, and even more outrageous in my opinion, this illegal rule says: Whoever does go to the exchange from Congress, from staff, gets this very generous taxpayer-funded subsidy transferred from the Federal employees health benefits plan which we are leaving to the exchange. Where did that come from? That is not in ObamaCare. In fact, section 1512 of ObamaCare says exactly the opposite with regard to all employer-based contributions. So where did that come from? It came out of thin air. It came from intense lobbying to have President Obama create this special Washington exemption. I urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing and say, you know what, the first most basic rule of democracy is we should be treated the same as America under the laws we pass. That should be true across the board, certainly including ObamaCare. That is why the Heritage Foundation recently said: Obama's action to benefit the political class is the latest example of this administration doing whatever it wants, regardless of whether it has the authority to do so. The Office of Personnel Management overstepped its authority when it carried out the President's request to exempt Congress from the requirements of the health care law. Changing laws is the responsibility of the legislative branch, not the executive. They also said: Millions of Americans are going to be losing their existing coverage and paying more for health insurance. Under the Vitter amendment, so would the Obama administration's appointees, Congress and congressional staff. They baked that cake, now they can eat it too. Similarly, National Review said recently: Most employment lawyers interpreted that-- Meaning the ObamaCare language --to mean that the taxpayer-funded federal health insurance subsidies dispensed to those on Congress's payroll--which now range from $5,000 to $11,000 a year--would have to end. A little later in the same opinion piece they wrote: Under behind-the-scenes pressure from members of Congress in both parties, President Obama used the quiet of the August recess to personally order the Office of Personnel Management, which supervisors Federal employment issues, to interpret the law so as to retain the generous Congressional benefits. The Wall Street Journal has also weighed in. I think they are right. The issue is the White House's recent ObamaCare bailout for members of Congress and their staffs. If Republicans want to show that they stand for something, this is it. If they really are willing to do whatever it takes to oppose this law, there would be no more meaningful way to prove it. As I said, the author of this original provision of ObamaCare made it perfectly clear where he was coming from. That is our distinguished colleague Chuck Grassley. ``The more that Congress experiences the laws it passes, the better.'' The distinguished lawyer regarding this area of law, David Ermer, also said, it is clear: ``I do not think members of Congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in the exchanges under existing law.'' That is why we have to act and have to vote before October 1. Finally, in closing, let me say, I want to be very direct and ask Members and the public to beware of another approach to defeating this ``no Washington exemption'' language. That approach is pretty clever and it is pretty cynical. That approach is to say: Oh, this is a great idea, but we actually need to expand this to all Federal employees. There are Members promoting this approach, particularly on the Republican side. That will have one effect and one effect only: It will help ensure absolutely, no ifs, ands, or buts, that my language does not pass or that language does not pass. In fact, one of the main Republican proponents of that language said in a meeting which I attended: This will be perfect because under that scenario, under that language, all Republicans can vote yes, all Democrats can vote no, and it will be killed and we will keep the subsidy. That is the game. That is the point. That is what is going on. We need a straight up-or-down vote on this ``no Washington exemption'' language which is filed as an amendment to this bill on the floor, which is filed as a separate bill. I very much look forward to that before October 1. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I was very happy to hear the description of a possible path forward from the floor manager for this bill a few minutes ago, and I welcome that path forward. It is completely consistent with the UC I offered many times last week that was, unfortunately, then rejected. Hopefully, it will now be accepted so we can have a path forward and have votes on so many amendments brought to this bill about energy, on my amendment, and on other significant topics. It certainly sounds as though the discussion at the majority lunch today was, let's say, more appropriate and more productive than the discussion last Thursday. I look forward to that path forward. As we hopefully build on that path forward, let me again explain why I think a clear up-or-down vote before October 1 on my amendment is very important and why I am demanding it. It is not my choosing that this happen in terms of this illegal OPM rule, it is not my choosing this October 1 deadline has been created, but that is exactly what has happened, which demanded that I act with my amendment which, in general, I am joined with the support of several colleagues and I appreciate their partnership and their help. This all began in the ObamaCare debate--in our debate and in our legislating--on the ObamaCare bill. In that process a Grassley amendment was accepted that said in clear and no uncertain terms that every Member of Congress and that all congressional staff would go to the so-called exchanges, no ifs, ands or buts. The purpose of that language was crystal clear. The message was whatever the fallback plan is for all Americans--first it was the public option and then it became an exchange--whatever that fallback plan is for all Americans, that is what every Member of Congress and that is what congressional staff should go to. There should be no special deal, no special exemption, no special subsidy; that is what we should live by. I certainly supported that language. It goes to what is a fundamental rule of democracy: The governors should live by the same rules as the governed, across the board. Our Founders actually talked about that specifically. James Madison, a coauthor of the Federalist Papers, wrote Federalist No. 57 specifically about this point, and a central theme in that Federalist No. 57 was exactly this: What is good for America is good for Washington. The rule for America should certainly be the rule for those who have the particular honor and responsibility to help govern, and that should be the case across the board, certainly including ObamaCare. That is why that provision got into law, passed into law, and was signed into law by President Obama. After that, I guess we sort of experienced what Nancy Pelosi described about ObamaCare, which was we had to pass the law to find out what is in it. After the law was passed, several folks around here on Capitol Hill and in Washington read the law, read that particular provision, and they said: Oh ``you know what.'' They said: Wait a minute, look at this, and they correctly noted the clear language demands that all Members of Congress, all congressional staff, go to the exchange, and, clearly, our current subsidy for health care does not follow us there. In fact, there is a specific other section of ObamaCare that says quite clearly that when an employee of a business goes to the exchange, that employee's employer contribution for employer-based health care does not follow him or her to the exchange. Again, when a lot of folks around here, after the fact, read what was then the ObamaCare law on that point, they said: Oh ``you know what.'' That is when a lot of scurrying started, a lot of gnashing of teeth, a lot of scheming, a lot of discussion, and ultimately a lot of lobbying of the President and the Obama administration. Sadly, it was bipartisan, I believe, a lot of folks pushing to have the Obama administration simply issue a rule, a regulation that fixed all of this. The problem is pretty simple, pretty straightforward, and pretty important. We are not supposed to issue a rule or regulation that is contrary to the statute, and that is what these folks were lobbying for and, sadly, that is what they got. Right as Congress was going into the August recess, safely leaving town, the Obama administration issued this OPM rule that my language is all about. That rule is flatout clearly illegal on two grounds. First of all, under this proposed OPM rule, every Member of Congress gets to decide for himself or herself what staff members are even covered by the mandate to go to the exchange at all. That is ridiculous, and it is directly contrary to the clear, unmistakable language in ObamaCare. That language says all official staff go to the exchange. Now this illegal OPM rule is going to say: Well, it did not really mean all official staff; it just meant whoever any individual Member of Congress decides. That is ridiculous and that is illegal. The second part of the OPM rule is just as illegal, just as ridiculous, just as objectionable, and it says: Whoever does go to the exchange--Members of Congress and whatever staff do go to the exchange--they get to bring along with them their big taxpayer-funded subsidy from their previous Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. Well, wait a minute. ObamaCare does not say that. In fact, there is a separate provision of ObamaCare that says the opposite, that says when an employee goes to the exchange from a business, that employee loses his or her employer contribution--a specific part of ObamaCare directly contrary to what this illegal OPM rule is trying to do. So, again, the attempt is simply to rewrite the law by administrative fiat, yet again to create another exemption from ObamaCare, if you will, that is nowhere in the statute. That is wrong, that is illegal, and that demands action. That is why I, with several other Members-- House and Senate--came up with this language. This language I am proposing on the floor now as an amendment would stop this illegal OPM rule. It would say exactly what ObamaCare says now: Every Member of Congress, all of our staff, must go to the exchange and operate under the same rules as all other Americans--no special deal, no special exemption, no special subsidy. No other American gets this fat employer subsidy in going to the exchange, nor should we. That is not in ObamaCare, and there is a specific section of ObamaCare that, in fact, says the opposite. So my language on the floor now would say that and would broaden the rule, appropriately, to the President, the Vice President, and all of their political appointees. The clear intent of this provision in ObamaCare from the beginning was that what is good for America has to be good for Washington, whatever cards America is dealt, including that fallback plan-- originally it was proposed as the public option; now the exchanges-- that should be what is imposed on Washington. No special plan, no special deal or exemption or subsidy; what is imposed on America needs to be imposed on Washington. That is true under ObamaCare. That should be true across the board today, just as it was true in the eyes and minds and hearts of the Founders. Again, James Madison, in Federalist No. 57, wrote specifically on this point. This basic first rule of democracy goes back that far. That is why I come to the floor and demand a vote. It is an explicit reaction to an illegal rule--a rule issued by the administration beyond the President's authority, with no basis in the ObamaCare law, in fact, with provisions of the ObamaCare law that are directly contrary to it, and a rule that is set to take effect October 1. So we must vote now. That is why, again--to come back full circle to the comments of the distinguished majority floor leader on this bill--I welcome the path forward he was describing. That is exactly the path forward I set out last week in my UC request. So let's vote. Let's do what this institution is supposedly set up to do. Let's vote on this very important, very timely issue. Let's vote on other amendments on the bill. Let's vote on the bill. Let's move forward in that appropriate and productive way. Thank you. With that, I yield back the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank and recognize the longstanding work of the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. He has fought long and hard from the very beginning for this position during the ObamaCare debate, and he has done so in a very focused and determined and consistent way. I appreciate his doing that all through the ObamaCare debate and bringing it to the floor with me and others in this amendment. I repeat, I appreciate all of his leadership in fighting for what I consider the first principle of democracy, which is that all rules that are passed on to America should be visited on Washington, and we should be treated exactly the same as the rest of America is treated. That should be true across the board, but it certainly should be true under ObamaCare. That is the very intent of this provision, which is the law now. It is the law now under ObamaCare. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to briefly respond to the comments by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. First, I welcome her statement that she supports getting a vote on the Vitter amendment. I am not sure I have heard it before, but I heard it just then and I welcome it and I appreciate it and want to echo that. Secondly, I wish to briefly respond to the notion that somehow now is not the appropriate time for that vote. I and my colleagues who support this language are reacting to an illegal rule that goes into effect October 1, so I am demanding a vote before October 1, when this goes into effect. I am not sure what more appropriate time there can be than before October 1 if we are trying to block this illegal rule that will happen October 1. So this is the appropriate time--not according to a timetable I made but according to a timetable that the Obama administration made and that is supported by the opponents of our language. If OPM wants to announce that they are delaying this illegal rule indefinitely or for 1 year, then we will delay this vote because that would be appropriate. But the appropriate time to stop this illegal rule that goes into effect October 1 is, by definition, before October 1, which is all I have demanded.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to personally thank our distinguished colleague from Nevada for all of his work and partnership on this important measure. He has been an outspoken leader from the very beginning of this debate and has stood hard and fast for the truly fundamental principle that any rule we pass here for America should first and foremost and equally be applied to Washington. So I really appreciate his leadership and his work, which continues, and we look forward to the vote that we absolutely demand and deserve before October 1. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to very briefly thank the Senator. That is a very generous and gentlemanly thing to do. This was the understanding between the floor staff. I know apparently it wasn't properly communicated to the Chair, but that was the clear understanding, and I appreciate that gesture.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Collins and Udall for coming to the floor with their positive amendment, laying it out, and debating it. I encourage everyone with an interest in this bill-- Democrats and Republicans--to do the same. Come to the floor, lay out amendments, and have that debate so we can move forward in a productive way as the first vote agreement is being worked on and finalized, and that is what I am going to proceed to do with regard to my amendment. My amendment is not related to this bill, but I have to bring it up now because it is very time sensitive. It is about something that is very wrong, in my opinion, that is happening October 1. Many of us in this Chamber, and certainly myself, regularly talk against the exemptions under ObamaCare that are created for the rich and powerful and politically connected. Many in this body, including myself, regularly talk about the abuses of this administration going beyond their legitimate authority and what is in the law. They are making up stuff through Executive orders, rulemaking, and Executive fiat. As I said, I am certainly in that group. I believe an action was taken recently that is a horrible, dangerous, and offensive example of both of those things, and my amendment would correct that situation. I will back up and explain what I am talking about. Right after all of Congress left for the August recess--a little over 1 month ago--the Office of Personnel Management, part of the Obama administration, issued a draft rule. This draft rule was basically designed to take any of the sting of ObamaCare away for Washington insiders--specifically Members of Congress and congressional staff. During the ObamaCare debate, we debated an amendment on the Senate floor, and it, to my pleasant surprise, was actually adopted. The amendment said that every Member of Congress and all congressional staff have to go to the exchange. They have to leave their very generous Federal employee health benefit coverage and go to the exchange. They have to go to the fallback position in terms of health care coverage that millions of Americans are dealing with and have to go to them right now or over the next several months. They have to live under those same rules and under those same circumstances of those tens of millions of Americans. I supported that. I think it is important that the ruling elite, if you will, need to live under the same laws they created across the board. Specifically, under ObamaCare, I think it is very important that everybody in Congress and in Washington--and I think this should be expanded to the administration--live under the same system in terms of the exchange that many of those folks created. That was the statute that was supposed to govern. After ObamaCare passed, to quote Nancy Pelosi, folks started looking and reading the bill to figure out what was in it. Lots of folks in Washington got very concerned once they read that revision and figured out what was in it. They understood it would create real dislocation and sting, not for America--although it does do that, but they were not concerned enough about that--but for Washington. For months, many people lobbied the administration to try to get around this and make up some regulation that would take the sting out of that provision. After intense lobbying, sure enough, the Obama administration issued this rule--again, as I mentioned a minute ago-- right after we left town and safely away at the start of the August recess. The rule did a few things, all of which I think are beyond the law, contrary to law, and outrageous. First of all, it says the statute, which says all official staff of Members of Congress need to go to the exchanges--the first thing the rule says is we don't know what official staff means, so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to decide if any member of their staff is official staff. So each Member of Congress can decide whether anybody on their staff has to go to the exchange at all. I think that is ludicrous on its face and completely contrary to the statute. But then the second big thing the rule did is made, out of thin air, the rule that the present subsidy we get from the taxpayer for our present health care coverage is going to somehow miraculously turn into a subsidy on the exchange, which doesn't exist. It doesn't exist for us under the law; it doesn't exist for any American. So they made up out of thin air this rule that the taxpayer-funded subsidy would follow all of these folks--Members of Congress and the staff who are required to go there--to the exchange. Again, that is not in the law. That is contrary to the letter and spirit of this provision. There is a separate provision of ObamaCare that specifically says with regard to all individuals going to the exchange that when they do this, when they go to a plan on the exchange, they lose their employer-provided subsidy. So that is specific about the situation of folks going to the exchange and directly contrary to this law. As I suggested at the beginning, I think this is a special exemption for Washington, a special bailout for Washington, to ensure Washington doesn't have to live by the same rules, in this case with regard to ObamaCare and the exchanges, that all of America does, and it is beyond the statute and it is beyond the President's constitutional authority. He can't make things up out of thin air. For that reason, I have joined with many colleagues to draft a bill which would make an amendment to this bill to propose that would fix that, and it is no Washington exemption from ObamaCare. Specifically, the bill would do three things: First of all, it does away with this OPM rule and it clarifies that Members don't get to pick and choose who is official staff. Congressional staff is congressional staff. Then it says, all Members of Congress, all congressional staff--and we expand it to the President and Vice President and all political appointees of the Obama administration--all of those folks have to go to the exchanges, the clear language of present law with regard to Members of Congress and their staff. Finally, we fix the other part of this illegal rule. We say this subsidy Members of Congress and staff currently enjoy under their present health care coverage can't follow them to the exchange. That is not the case for any other American. That is not in the law. In fact, in ObamaCare, there is a broader provision completely contrary to that, so we say that cannot happen. That is what our bill and our amendment is. I think it is a fundamental, a threshold, and a very important rule of democracy that the governors have to live by the same laws they pass and impose on the governed. I think that should be the case across the board and certainly that should be the case under ObamaCare. Tens of millions of Americans are experiencing having to go to the exchanges. Many of them didn't want to go there. Many of them had good coverage with their employer that they are losing because of the economics of this new situation, and they are being forced to the exchange. The clear language and intent of that provision in ObamaCare was for Members of Congress and staff to have to experience the same thing, and that is the clear language and that is the clear intent. So we should live by that, not get around it. And, in my opinion, we should expand it to the President, who has volunteered to go to the exchange, to the Vice President, and to all of their political appointees. That is what our amendment does. That is what our bill does. I wish to thank all of the Members, Senate and House, who were working hard on this proposal, including Senators Enzi, Heller, Johnson, and many others. I know I am missing several. There are several House Members, led by Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida, who are working on identical House language. They are hard at work, particularly in the context of the CR. The bottom line is this: There should be no special Washington exemption from ObamaCare. All laws we pass should apply to us every bit as much as other Americans, and certainly we, as is the clear language and is the clear intent, should live under that fallback plan of the exchanges just as every other American does. No other American gets this special subsidy the OPM rule gives to us. Folks in this class under my amendment and bill would be able to qualify for a subsidy, if it is the same subsidy that is available to other Americans, according to income category. So if a person qualifies by income, fine. But this is way beyond that. This is a special deal, a special exemption for Congress, and we need to say there should be no Washington exemption. This bill, this amendment does that clearly and categorically. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this. Let me end by talking about a vote. I am bringing up this amendment on this bill. The reason is this issue is very time sensitive. This rule, which was made up out of thin air, in my opinion, goes into effect and all of this is set to happen October 1. So this debate has to happen, a change to this rule has to happen before October 1. That is why I am bringing it up now and demanding a vote. But, actually, that vote doesn't have to be on this bill. I will accept any fair, reasonable, substantive vote before October 1. But we need to lock that down. I think we are well on our way to locking that down, and I look forward to that. In the meantime, let me again urge my colleagues who have amendments to this bill on the subject of energy or on any other subject to come down and present those on the floor, talk about them and debate them, as I have, as Senators Udall and Collins have. Let's move forward with the process as we nail down this first vote agreement. As we get to a vote on this amendment, I urge my colleagues to follow the first and, in many ways, most basic rule of democracy: that the rules we impose on the governed we should live by. That is absolutely essential. That should be the case across the board, certainly including ObamaCare, and in the case of ObamaCare, there is specific language which says that. That is what it says. That is what it is supposed to be about. This illegal OPM rule completely invalidates and gets around that rule, so we need to act to fix that now, well before October 1. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, let me offer this truly friendly suggestion. I think we can proceed with this debate. Senator Portman said proceed with the debate. We can proceed with this debate right now. We can bring amendments to the floor, we can talk about them, we can have a full debate on any amendment folks want to bring to the floor. I encourage that. I think that will move the process along because we can basically do all of the substantive debate on these amendments. The only thing I am talking about is a technicality, which is making the amendment pending. That is a technicality that does not have to stop or delay or prohibit any debate. My suggestion is to move full forward with that debate as we work out this agreement. I am fully prepared in the same way to discuss and debate my amendment. I am ready to do that whenever it is appropriate.

Mr. VITTER. Unfortunately, I am going to have to sustain my objection. But I am very hopeful this can be worked out in short order, as soon as a vote on my amendment is locked down. In fact, I will go this far. It doesn't even have to be on this bill. It does have to be in the near future, because the issue with regard to which I am very concerned happens on October 1. So this is an extremely time-sensitive issue. I have had good discussions with the majority, and it seems as though we are going to be able to lock down that agreement hopefully very soon. But until then, I am going to have to object.

Mr. VITTER. I object.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, as I made clear previously but I will restate, I objected to and I continue to object to laying aside any amendment and making another amendment pending. We made that clear between the floor staff of the minority and majority side. That was crystal clear, so I object.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, today I wish to honor a very special organization, Ride of the Brotherhood. Established earlier this year by Air Force veteran and Louisiana native Ed Lewis, Ride of the Brotherhood, seeks to raise funds for our Nation's veterans and children's charities. In March 2015, the organization will hold its first major event called ``The Return'' to honor the 50-year anniversary of those who bravely served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. On March 8, 1965, American troops landed on China Beach and marched to Da Nang Air Force Base to secure the air base, freeing South Vietnamese troops fighting against the Viet Cong. Those 3,500 Marines were the first combat troops dispatched to support the Saigon government's efforts to defeat the Communist insurgency. To mark this occasion, 10 Vietnam veterans will travel on motorcycles from Louisiana to California, fly to Vietnam, and ride along the coast stopping at important locations to pay respects to those lost during the war. On March 8, 2013, the 50-year anniversary, the group intends to be at China Beach before traveling to Da Nang. Upon their return, they will ride cross-country from California to the Vietnam Memorial here in Washington, DC, before returning to New Orleans for a ``Welcome Home'' celebration. ``The Return'' will provide closure for those veterans making the trip, and for some, their only opportunity to see the great memorials dedicated to their service. Because the entire journey will be documented, family, friends, and many others will have an opportunity to witness the experiences of the men who fought in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand. In addition, the trip will highlight the positive relations that now exist between the United States and the Vietnamese people. I am humbled to have the opportunity to express my appreciation to Mr. Ed Lewis for his service to our country and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their devotion to our Nation.