Madam President, I come to the floor again to try to achieve what I think is a very simple and straightforward but important objective: to get a clear up-or-down vote on a pure disclosure proposal I…
Madam President, I come to the floor again to try to achieve what I think is a very simple and straightforward but important objective: to get a clear up-or-down vote on a pure disclosure proposal I have. This proposal would say that the elections all of us make as Members of the Senate and all of the House Members make with regard to how our offices go to the ObamaCare exchange as mandated by statute do not go through this end runaround of the OPM rule. That is simply public information. How each office handles the situation is public information.
Whatever we believe about the Washington exemption from ObamaCare, whatever we believe about that debate and that exemption and that subsidy, it should be a no-brainer, not partisan debate, how each of us and how each of our offices handle whether this election is public information. Right now it is not. A lot of Members, including me, have explained what they are doing, but certainly not all have, and that is not public information. This amendment which I am proposing would simply produce full disclosure and have that be public information.
I am open to any way to get a clear vote on that this calendar year, so I am completely flexible on how that happens--on this bill before us--and I would certainly like to expedite consideration and passage of this bill; or an amendment on the Defense bill next week--that would be another possibility; or a quick debate on my freestanding bill--that would be a third possibility. None of those would take significant time in the Senate. In fact, all of those would expedite Senate business, including leading to the passage of the bill now on the Senate floor right now, today. So it would actually expedite the process and expedite consideration.
With that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 2024 be called up, that a Democratic side-by-side amendment be in order to be called up, and that those be the only amendments in order other than those currently pending; that both those amendments be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption; I further ask that there be a total of 2 hours of debate equally divided on both amendments and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the Democratic amendment, followed by a vote on my amendment; that following the disposition of the amendments, the bill 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.
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.
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.
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.
