Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to again advocate that we move forward, we come together across the aisle as Democrats and Republicans to agree on what we do agree on and to do some things constructively-- specifically, to help veterans across our country.

There are 27 community-based VA clinics that are on the books at the Veterans' Administration ready to go. The VA is ready to break ground, move forward, and build these expanded community-based clinics to serve areas around the country and veterans around the country in a much better way. I am particularly interested because 2 of those 27 clinics are in Louisiana, in Lafayette and in Lake Charles.

All of these clinics have gotten stuck in the mud through several rounds of bureaucratic delay at the VA--funding delays, authorization delays, and a dispute about whether moving forward with these clinics was kosher under the budget rules. We have solved all of those problems. We have figured out solutions to all of those problems that satisfies everyone. The House of Representatives has taken those solutions, put them together in a bill and passed it overwhelmingly out of the House with over 400 votes in support--virtually unanimous. Now we are on the Senate floor and all we have to do is take that bill, adopt a simple noncontroversial amendment and pass it through the Senate. No one in the Senate disagrees with the substance of this bill. No one disagrees with the substance of the amendment we would add to this bill. No one disagrees with the importance of moving forward with these 27 VA clinics. Yet we are still finding it difficult to move this simple noncontroversial matter through the Senate. Why? Because, quite frankly, some of our colleagues who have a much bigger, broader veterans package want to hold this hostage for their veterans package. While I applaud their sincerity, I applaud their passion, I think we should agree on what we can agree on and move forward with what we agree on. Let's not get bogged down and defeat 27 very important community-based veterans clinics because there are major and sincere disagreements about the much broader package.

I also think it will build good will to resolve some of those issues and come forward with a compromise version of a larger package if we do that. In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3521, which was received from the House; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, on behalf of 43 Members of the Senate, I object based on substantive disagreements about this very broad-based bill.

Mr. President, reclaiming the floor and my time.

I think it is really regrettable. The Senator from Vermont and I can talk about the substance. I will be happy to talk about the substance of his big bill. But the bottom line is that 43 Members of the Senate disagree with him about serious substantive issues.

Because there is major disagreement--almost half of the Senate, 43 Members of the Senate--he is going to block moving forward with 27 clinics to serve veterans around the country, about which there is no disagreement. On my bill, as amended, there is zero disagreement on the substance of that bill. Because he can't get his way fully on a bigger package, he is going to take the bat and take the ball, and home plate, first base, second, and third, and go home. I don't think this is the approach and spirit in which the American people want us to work. I think the American people want us to agree when we can agree. I think we should bend over to agree in those instances where we can agree and actually accomplish substantive, concrete things. We would be doing that by moving forward separately with these 27 important community- based clinics. And by the way, I think we would be creating a much better environment to continue to work on a compromised broader package.

I commend this approach again to my friend from Vermont. I think we should come together where we agree. I think we should accomplish what we can and continue to work on a broader package. But taking these 27 clinics hostage is not doing that, is not creating an atmosphere which is conducive to progress on a broader package, and is not properly serving the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I rise to talk about two very important issues for the country and for Louisiana. The first is fixing the national flood insurance system, getting it right. The good news is I think we are well on a path to doing that effectively. The second is veterans medical clinics, two of which are in Louisiana. They have been held up for completely bureaucratic reasons and aren't moving forward as they need to serve the veterans in Lafayette and Lake Charles, LA, and in about 25 other locations around the country.

First, flood insurance. Only a couple of days ago the House passed by a huge margin, over 300 votes, a strong bill to permanently fix the National Flood Insurance Program. Those aspects of the so-called Biggert-Waters act passed over 1 year ago but are unworkable, clearly creating problems on the ground.

This is great news, because unless we fix those very real problems, we would have major problems on our hands in the National Flood Insurance Program, not only in Louisiana, not only in Florida, and not only in the Superstorm Sandy area, but in every State in the country-- every State. It is not a question of if these issues are coming to your State, it is a question of when and exactly to what extent.

Over 1 year ago, we passed the Biggert-Waters act. That was an important reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program. It also included reforms, and many of those reforms needed to happen to stabilize the financing of the program.

What no one understood adequately then, however, is that those well- intended reforms, in practice, in implementation by FEMA, would lead to unsustainable, completely unaffordable rate increases in a significant number of cases.

That only began to be understood in the months after the bill was passed as FEMA started to implement it, as FEMA came to homeowners, came to State authorities, came to Members of Congress, and began to lay out some of the rates we would see in certain areas.

I am not talking about modest rate increases. We need modest rate increases to stabilize the financing of the program. I am talking about completely unaffordable rate increases in some cases--flood insurance rates going from $300 a year to $11,000 a year or $19,000 a year or $26,000 a year on a modest middle-class home and on a middle-class family that followed the rules every step of the way. We can't allow that to stand.

First, it is fundamentally unfair. As I said, these middle-class families followed the rules every step of the way. They built to the right elevation when they built their homes, never let their premiums lapse, and never let their insurance lapse.

In that context, for them to be hit with truly unaffordable rate increases--increases that could literally cause them to have to walk away from their home in some significant number of cases and not be able to afford to stay there--is just plain wrong.

Secondly, it is completely counterproductive, because one of the ways we have stabilized the National Flood Insurance Program fiscally is to grow the program, to have more folks paying premiums, and to have more folks covered, not fewer. This aspect of Biggert-Waters, which would lead to truly unaffordable rate increases in a significant number of cases, is unworkable from the very vantage point of the goal of Biggert-Waters to stabilize the system. So we can't let that stand for that reason either.

The good news is, because of those very real problems, both the Senate, and now the House, have come together in a major bipartisan way to fix the issue. The Senate acted about 1 month ago passing meaningful legislation. I was an original coauthor and a strong supporter. As I said a few minutes ago, the House acted two nights ago--Mardi Gras night in Louisiana terms--to take strong action to fix this program.

The House bill is stronger and more significant in several respects, mostly because the reforms in the House bill are permanent. It is not a timeout, as the Senate bill was. It is a permanent fix that creates a much higher degree of certainty and permanence immediately.

Also, the House bill is fully paid for with a modest premium increase on everybody's premiums--very modest, completely affordable--to make sure that all of these changes are paid for. Because of these aspects of the House bill, because of the permanent nature of the fix, the fact that we create certainty and predictability immediately moving forward for homeowners and real estate markets is actually the preferable approach.

I urge all of us in the Senate to take up that bill at the soonest possible moment. Specifically, I urge the distinguished majority leader to put it on the floor, to create time on the floor, so we can deal with the House bill absolutely as soon as possible.

I know there will be some attempt to obtain unanimous consent to pass the House bill immediately. Of course, I will consent; I am all for that. But, realistically, I don't think that is going to happen on the Senate floor. The Senate bill had some objectors, the Senate bill had some opponents, and so does the House bill.

Realistically, I urge the majority leader to create the time on the Senate floor to take this up and move through the process absolutely as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. That is the way it is actually going to work and that is the way it is actually going to happen.

I hope we can do that as early as next week. I strongly support our consideration of this bill on the Senate floor as early as next week.

The second national and Louisiana issue I want to discuss has to do with veterans and veterans' health care, which we have been talking about on the Senate floor for some time, specifically the need to move forward with 27 fully approved, fully authorized, VA community-based clinics that have been stalled because of bureaucratic problems. Again, these clinics are around the country: two in Louisiana, one in Lafayette, one in Lake Charles. These clinics have been approved by the VA and have been in their plan for some time. They are fully authorized. We thought they were fully paid for until, first, the VA made some bureaucratic mistakes to delay the Lake Charles and Lafayette clinics in particular; and then, out of the blue, the CBO changed the way they score all of these clinics, all of these issues, and created another bureaucratic hurdle.

Again, the good news is we came together in a bipartisan way and have a solution to those purely bureaucratic hurdles so that all of these clinics can move forward expeditiously. The House specifically passed a bill that would take care of these bureaucratic hurdles. They passed it on the consent calendar by a whopping bipartisan margin.

So I come to the floor urging all of us to do the same. Specifically, I have an amendment to the bill that also makes it even more fiscally sustainable by having a pay-for for any conceivable cost to this bill, and that is what my amendment would do.

This VA clinic legislation was in the Sanders veterans bill last week and it was in the Burr alternative. It was in both the Democratic and the Republican veterans packages. Neither of those packages passed. The Sanders bill was defeated on a budget point of order, which I supported because I don't think it is properly paid for and is sustainable both in terms of our budget and, even more important for veterans, how the veterans system works and handles its current patient load. The Burr bill never even got a vote.

We have disagreements about those larger packages. Those are real, substantial disagreements, but in the midst of that I would hope we can agree to what we can agree on, and these VA clinics certainly fall into that category. We have cleared all objections to this VA clinic piece specifically. We have addressed all issues having to do with these VA clinics, in part through my amendment at the desk. The only possible objection I know of is the fact that a larger package is not passing.

I understand there are big arguments about that larger package. Those are legitimate differences of opinion. I don't think that should stand in the way of our agreeing to what we can agree to and moving forward with an important piece of the puzzle for veterans health care--these 27 community-based clinics around the country.

In that spirit I will be asking for a unanimous consent agreement whereby we would take up the House-passed bill. Again, this House- passed bill was actually on the consent calendar, passed with a whopping bipartisan majority. We would adopt my amendment at the desk, which addresses some fiscal concerns with the bill, and we would then pass it through the process. This would be our coming together and agreeing to what we can agree on. That is what the American people want us to do as we work on all other aspects of health care and veterans' benefits covered by both the Burr and the Sanders bill debated last week.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3521

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3521, which was received from the House; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reclaiming the floor and my time.

I find that very regretful. Of course I will continue to work with the Senator from Vermont. Of course I will continue to work on that larger package, which I have been actively involved in for some time. I will continue that. But basically the Senator from Vermont is holding a very tiny piece of this hostage--a tiny piece that will have no impact whether it is in or out in terms of passage of that broader bill.

What is happening is we have a piece that on its substance, on the substance of the clinics themselves, no one objects to; a piece that passed the House by a huge overwhelmingly bipartisan majority. Yet it is not going to pass here today or perhaps anytime soon because it is held hostage over larger fights.

I will continue to work on that broader veterans piece. I support a broader veterans bill, if it is styled the right way and if it is fiscally responsible. I support the Burr alternative. I will continue to look for common ground between that Burr alternative and the Sanders bill. But whether this clinic piece is in or out of that discussion will have zero impact on passing that piece. I honestly think it will have zero impact.

I find it very unfortunate we can't get this done in the meantime; that what my colleague considers the perfect is now the enemy of the very good, and we can't serve veterans by coming together on what we do agree on and acting in the meantime.

With that, I urge my distinguished colleague from Vermont to reconsider over time, as we work on this larger veterans bill, because we could pass this today. The House would pass the slightly modified version immediately, and we would be moving on with 27 community-based clinics around the country which veterans in all of those communities desperately need.

Additionally, I wish to thank Senator Inhofe for his active cooperation in moving these clinics forward.

Mr. President, my good friend, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, is in support of vital legislation that recently passed the House of Representatives, H.R. 3521 the Department of Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Lease Authorization Act of 2013. The legislation authorizes 27 Department of Veterans Affairs clinics across this country including much needed clinics in Lafayette and Lake Charles,

Yes, it is absolutely critical for Louisiana veterans as well that both of the clinics in Lafayette and Lake Charles are authorized and finally built. To clarify, both of the Louisiana clinics are not new projects. They would actually be nearing completion, but because of bureaucratic mistakes committed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, they have faced significant delays. Two years ago, due to an unexpected change by the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--in how it estimates the cost of VA clinics, these two vital clinics were then stripped out of a VA authorization bill. Veterans in Louisiana have waited long enough. It is time for the United States Senate to act. This legislation makes it so veterans are not forced to drive a 100 miles to receive much needed services.

This legislation makes important reforms to the VA leasing process taking into account CBO concerns, and it has received vast bipartisan support in the House passing 346-1. I urge my colleagues to provide the same support for our veterans in the Senate and pass this legislation now by unanimous consent.

With that, I yield floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Central Louisiana Chamber of Commerce.

The Central Louisiana Chamber of Commerce was originally founded as the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce by 250 men from all walks of life on March 30, 1914, in the Italian Room of the Hotel Bentley. Their intent was to promote the city and the region in order to attract business and facilitate growth, and they have been continuing this work for 100 years.

Over the next few decades, the Alexandria chamber would see many accomplishments toward this goal, with railroad companies like Missouri Pacific and Texas and Pacific opening terminal and repair facilities. Likewise, in 1923 RoyOMartin would open a forestry and wood products manufacturing facility. The U.S. military established a presence with Camp Beauregard, and the Alexandra VA Hospital opened to train and care for our men during World Wars I and II. Fort Polk was opened in 1941 to support our engagement in World War II, and the Fort Polk and the Joint Readiness Training Center continues to train men and women defending the United States today.

In 1956, the Alexandria chamber would merge with its neighboring chamber in Pineville, LA, to establish the Greater Alexandria-Pineville Chamber of Commerce to expand economic development initiatives across the region. During the next 30 years, LSU opened a campus in Alexandria; commercial airlines offered flights from Esler Field; and companies such as Proctor & Gamble and Manning, Maxwell & Moore opened manufacturing plants, all in part due to the efforts of Greater Alexandria-Pineville Chamber.

In 1986, the chamber would adopt its current name, with a mission and vision to advocate for pro-business policies and provide programs that foster an environment for economic growth across the 11 parish region that it now represents, leveraging partnerships with many other organizations in the area to promote the region. The central Louisiana chamber has also prioritized helping young people in the community. The Chamber's Young Professionals Group is one such example of efforts to engage, retain, and involve Louisiana's future leaders. Also, its Work Ready Network is a partnership with the Rapides Foundation, the Orchard Foundation, and the Central Louisiana Economic Development Alliance to link education, workforce development efforts, and the region's economic needs.

Since its founding the Central Louisiana Chamber of Commerce has gone on to become the largest chamber in the region with more than 1,100 member businesses representing more than 28,000 employees. The chamber been an economic, social, and political leader for central Louisiana, and I am pleased to congratulate them on a century of success.

Madam President, I wish to recognize Bogue Falaya Baptist Church.

Beginning with 15 charter members in 1858, Bogue Falaya Baptist Church has been ministering to the community for more than 155 years. On February 23 they celebrated a milestone, as the congregation commemorated the completion of the relocation and expansion of their church. Tireless work was undertaken to ensure this project happened.

The staff and members of Bogue Falaya have served others with compassion and care, without hesitation, and they prioritize teaching children about Jesus, the Scriptures, and helping others.

Many are told today that sharing one's religious beliefs are taboo. However, as the oldest church in St. Tammany Parish, Bogue Falaya has continued to share its beliefs. The congregation has grown, a testament to the efforts of Pastor Jake Roudkovski and those who work with him. Bogue Falaya has been a cornerstone for spiritual guidance in St. Tammany, and I recognize the efforts of all members of the church community as the congregation continues in Christ's footsteps.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize New Hope Baptist Church.

On Sunday, February 23, New Hope Baptist Church observed its 145th anniversary of its Christian ministry to the citizens of Gretna, LA. Founded in 1863 by 14 freed slaves, New Hope was first known as the Congregational Church, later changing to the Freewill Baptist Church before finally adopting its current name.

Under the leadership and guidance of Rev. Warren Johnson, New Hope has remained true to the core values and beliefs that serve as the spiritual foundation of its mission. The church is part of the historical tour of Gretna and is located next to the site of the first school for African-American children in the city. New Hope has served as beacon of light and a place where people in the community can come to rejuvenate their faith.

It is my honor to recognize New Hope Baptist Church on this anniversary, and I offer my best wishes for many more years of faithful service.

I yield back all time.

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the flood insurance fix bill on the floor today. I urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to come together and pass this first crucial step toward getting it right with the National Flood Insurance Program. It is important for America. It is important for millions upon millions of American homeowners, not just in Louisiana, not just in Florida, but in every State. Every State in the country is absolutely affected.

I also specifically urge my colleagues to defeat the Toomey amendment, which I think is very well intended but will not get the job done, and to waive the budget point of order, which is a largely technical point of order. I will explain each of those in turn.

First of all, I will explain the need for this bill to get things right. All of us came together over a year ago and passed the so-called Biggert-Waters Act, to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program and to reform it in important ways. We needed to do that broad-brush. The program needed to be continued, and not just in short-term fits and starts, which had been the pattern for many years. In fact, in 2010 it was so bad that we actually let the program lapse four different times by inaction, shutting down thousands upon thousands of real estate closings that we needed to build our economy, shutting those down every time. So we needed that reauthorization. We needed and still need reforms of the program. We need to build up the program to make it fiscally sustainable, to make sure that over time we get revenues, premiums coming in that cover the full cost of the program. There is no debate about that. That is why we passed that bill.

What was not foreseen was that in some significant number of cases, those reforms, once they were put into effect, would actually lead to completely unaffordable rate increases--a completely unsustainable path forward that would not even get us toward the goal of building up the fund and building up the program to make it fiscally sustainable. No expert predicted that beforehand. No one from FEMA said:

You will have some rates that are completely unaffordable. No outside insurance experts said that. But once the details of the reauthorization began to be put in place, that became very apparent. We do not know exactly how many cases we would have like this, but we know they are not just isolated cases. We know they are not just in coastal communities. They are in every State, to some extent or another, around the country. Over time, Members of both parties from every State have begun to understand that, which brings us together hopefully in a constructive way on the floor today.

Certainly, that situation is dire and the threat is very real in Louisiana. Months ago, for instance, I visited a neighborhood in St. Charles Parish, which is part of southeast Louisiana, right on the Mississippi River. I visited a very nice, solid middle-class neighborhood. I met with many homeowners there. They presented me with a box--a box this big, at least--full of keys, house keys. They were these folks' actual house keys. They were saying: If this is not fixed, if this is not done right in time, we are going to have to turn these keys in to the banks, to the government, to whomever, because we would face not only premium increases. We had all accepted premium increases as part of the reform and as part of the reauthorization, but these would be completely unaffordable, unsustainable increases--literally going to $12,000, $18,000 or $27,000 a year--not on a millionaire's home but on a modest middle-class home. That just doesn't work.

These folks were saying very sincerely, very directly: Here are my home keys because that is where this is headed.

That is not right on so many different levels. First and foremost, it is not right for those Americans who have lived by the rules every step of the way, who built to the right elevation when they built their home, who got the flood insurance required by law, required by prudence, and paid all of their premiums. They went through mitigation programs, if they could, to raise their homes in many cases.

These are folks who are not living right on the coast, who are not choosing highly dangerous areas, and who do not have second homes, beach homes. We are not talking about that at all. We are talking about a solid middle-class neighborhood way off the gulf coast.

These are people who followed the rules every step of the way who still failed the prospect of those completely unaffordable increases. That is not right, and it is not fair.

On a second level, that reality threatens whole communities and it threatens our economy because if that were allowed to happen in any significant number of cases, it would be an economic spiral downward. Banks would be burdened with foreclosures. Local businesses would be hurt significantly. Whole communities would be in an economic spiral downward.

We are not just talking about second homes on a beach. We are not talking about that at all in Louisiana. This bill does not give any relief regarding second homes, for instance. We are talking about a lot of communities and a real and unsustainable hit to our economy.

On a third and final level, that reality would ensure we don't even get to the goal of these reforms, which is to make the system whole and fiscally sustainable. To do that we need more folks in the National Flood Insurance Program, not folks leaving and turning in their keys. That will kill any effort to make the program solid fiscally and sustainable fiscally. So on every level we cannot allow this to happen.

The Menendez-Isakson bill, with the help of many other Members, including myself, was put together to get us to the right place. It takes the important first step to make sure we get it right, FEMA does the mapping correctly--which they are not doing in some cases now--and FEMA does the affordability study mandated in the original Biggert- Waters, but which FEMA has not even begun yet. We do all those things to get this right and avoid completely unaffordable rate increases.

I urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support this good bill.

We also need your support in defeating the Toomey amendment and in waiving the budget point of order. Let me speak about those briefly.

Senator Toomey's amendment is very well intended, but it falls short, in my opinion. It limits any delay in rate increases to 2 years, and some rate increases continue for those 2 years. Most importantly, it doesn't mandate and ensure that FEMA ever gets through this affordability study, ever makes recommendations to Congress for the ultimate fix, and doesn't give us any time to react and legislate in that area. It doesn't ensure in any way that FEMA gets its mapping right based on true sound science and engineering methodologies.

That is just kicking the can down the road and not ensuring in any meaningful way that we are going to get it right. That simply isn't good enough.

We need to tie in any delay to figuring out the ultimate fix by having FEMA complete its affordability study, by making FEMA make recommendations to us, by giving us 6 months to act on those recommendations, by mandating that FEMA do its mapping correctly and not have rate increases before it rushes forward with incorrect mapping, which is going on right now in some cases.

That is what the underlying bill does. That is what the Toomey amendment does not do--as well intended as it is.

Secondly, there will be a budget point-of-order vote, and we do need 60 votes to waive that budget point of order. I will vote ``yes'' to waive it--as a strong fiscal conservative--because this is necessary to get this national flood insurance system right and to make it fiscally sustainable.

In fact, over the 10-year budget window that we normally use in scoring, this bill has no score over those 10 years. It only has some scores in some intermediate periods of time, which gives rise to the budget point of order.

I urge my colleagues to vote to waive that point of order, knowing there is no score over 10 years and also knowing that, quite frankly, the fiscal assumptions about the current law are enormously flawed. The notion that we are going to make the National Flood Insurance Program more stable and more fiscally sustainable by having a bunch of premiums go up to $27,000 a year on a modest middle-class home is crazy. That is not going to get us to a better place. That is going to get to us a worse place. That is going to shrink the program and have people leave the program--paying no premiums, not paying higher premiums.

Yet raising insurance premiums has to be part of the solution, but unaffordable premium increases aren't part of the solution because people can't afford to pay them. So they will pay zero instead of something substantial. They will leave the program instead of putting more homeowners and properties in the program, which is essential to get to a strong and stable fiscal situation.

Again, on a bipartisan basis, I urge my colleagues to support this bill--it is a very important step to stabilize and fix the situation-- to defeat the Toomey amendment and to waive the budget point of order, which is absolutely necessary in this process to support a good bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor Catholic schools across our Nation that provide our children with an outstanding education while preparing them to lead lives in the example of Jesus Christ. This year, we mark the 40th year of celebrating Catholic Schools Week, shedding light on the extraordinary contributions these schools and their students make to communities across the country.

This year's theme, ``Catholic Schools: Communities of Faith, Knowledge, and Service,'' provides a solid representation of the mission of these schools in educating the whole person and forming our children into responsible stewards ready to take on the challenges of the future. Today, more than 2 million children are educated in Catholic schools in the United States. Ninety-nine percent of them graduate from high school, and 85 percent pursue postsecondary education. Such a rate of success is a great testament to the quality of our Catholic schools and their educators.

As an alumnus of a Catholic school in New Orleans, I have firsthand experience of the benefits of receiving a Catholic education. These schools are devoted to nurturing the young minds that pass though their halls each year, instilling in them the values necessary to become active and caring members of their communities, cities, and Nation.

In a recent statement, Bishop George Lucas, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Education, stated:

Our schools have educated millions of young people over the

years by providing them a superior academic background,

always pointing the way to eternal life. The success of

Catholic schools in handing on the faith, generation after

generation, is a bright light in the history of the Church in

the United States.

During the week of January 26 to February 1, let us recognize the steadfast commitment of the administrators, teachers, students, and families, who support Catholic schools across the United States, and appreciate their efforts to educate the youth of our Nation. In that respect, I am hopeful that the Senate will pass my bipartisan resolution celebrating Catholic Schools Week.

Mr. President, since 1923, the Archdiocese of New Orleans has offered a deeper understanding of Catholic theology and discipleship through Notre Dame Seminary. In its 90 years, Notre Dame Seminary has prepared men for ministerial priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church, promoting a spirit of humility, service, and sacrifice. In addition, the seminary offers graduate theological education programs to deepen the faith of both religious and laity.

Leaving the seminary, these young men are prepared to become servant leaders in their parish communities around the world and to profess the life and good works of Christ in their daily lives. Blessed John Paul II said, ``The formation of future priests . . . is considered by the Church one of the most demanding and important tasks for the future of evangelization of humanity.''

These 90 years are a testament to Notre Dame Seminary's steadfast commitment to this demanding and important task. Their stewardship of God's grace has blessed our communities, protected the vulnerable, comforted the sick, and offered hope to the broken. Men who have graduated from Notre Dame Seminary have served our communities in over 20 dioceses throughout the United States.

I am grateful for Notre Dame Seminary's leadership in our community and throughout the United States and celebrate their 90 years of preparing servant leaders for our church.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, obviously I will be brief. I was simply trying to engage the majority leader in a simple question. I will lay out the question here. I think it deserves an answer, not for me but for the American people. Last week I had written the majority leader noting that several press reports have stated that he has exempted much of his staff, specifically leadership staff, from ObamaCare, from the mandate of the ObamaCare statute that we and our staffs go to the exchanges for our health care. He has exempted much of his staff from that. So I laid out some specific and pertinent and important questions related to that in a letter to him dated December 10, last week. I have gotten no response. I obviously got no response this morning. In fact, he would not even yield for my question.

I think that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate not because I personally deserve an answer, it is unfortunate because this is important. I think his constituents and the American people deserve an answer. So I restated those four specific questions in my letter. They are in my letter. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss what I call the Washington exemption from ObamaCare. One of the few real victories the American people had in the ObamaCare debate was we actually got an amendment included in the Senate consideration of the bill that said much of Washington--all Members and all of our congressional staff-- have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges for our health care, just like millions of other Americans. We had to get it there.

Unfortunately, I guess this was an example of what Nancy Pelosi said when she said we need to pass the bill in order to understand what is in it.

After the ObamaCare statute passed with that very clear and very specific provision in it, a lot of folks around here read it and said: Oh, you know what. How are we going to deal with this? A furious behind-the-scenes lobbying effort then began. It went on for months. It was to essentially get around that provision and the pain it would cause--the pain being subjecting Members of Congress and all of our staff to the same circumstance and experience as other Americans.

That ended with President Obama getting personally involved and the Obama administration issuing a special rule, and that rule is just an end run around the specific statutory provision. I think it is completely illegal for that reason, because it is in conflict with that statutory provision.

One of the key issues of that rule says--well, the statute says all official staff will go to the exchange, but we really don't mean that so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member to decide what staff are official and what staff will go to the exchange.

As a result, there is a huge loophole some Members are using to exempt much--in some cases even all--of their staff from going to the exchange.

As mandated clearly by the ObamaCare statute, we have to walk the walk of other Americans, and we have to share in that experience.

Sadly, according to press reports, the distinguished majority leader Mr. Reid is one of those Members actively taking advantage of that loophole and exempting much of his staff. Because of that, I have written the majority leader today and asked him to answer some very important and straightforward questions about that situation.

In order to make my point, I will simply read the letter into the Record. It was sent to the distinguished majority leader in the last several hours.

Dear Majority Leader Reid.

It has been reported that you were the only Member of top

Congressional leadership--House and Senate, Democrat and

Republican--who has exempted some of your staff from having

to procure their health insurance through the Obamacare

Exchange as clearly required by the Obamacare statute.

Millions of Americans are losing the health care plans and

doctors they wanted to keep and are facing dramatic premium

increases, all as Washington enjoys a special exemption.

Given this, I ask you to publicly and in writing answer the

four important questions below regarding your office's

exemptions. I will also be on the Senate floor to discuss

this at approximately 4:15 pm today and invite you to join me

there.

First, how did you designate each member of your staff,

including your leadership staff, regarding their status as

``official'' (going to the Exchange) or ``not official''

(exempted from Exchange)? Did you delegate that designation

to the Senate Disbursing Office, which would have the effect

of exempting all of your leadership staff from going to the

Exchange?

Second, if any of your staff is designated as ``not

official'' (exempted from Exchange), are any of those staff

members receiving official taxpayer-funded salaries,

benefits, office space, office equipment, or any other

taxpayer support?

Third, if any of your staff is designated as ``not

official'' (exempted from Exchange), did any of these staff

members assist you in drafting or passing Obamacare into law?

If so, which staff members exactly?

Fourth, how are the above designations of yours consistent

with the clear, unequivocal statement you made on September

12: ``Let's stop these really juvenile political games--the

ones dealing with health care for Senators and House members

and our staff. We are going to be part of exchanges, that's

what the law says and we'll be part of that.''

I look forward to your clear, written responses to these

important questions. I also look forward to having fair up-

or-down votes on the Senate floor on my ``Show Your

Exemptions'' and ``No Washington Exemptions'' proposals in

the new year.

Sincerely, David Vitter.

This letter lays it out clearly. I think this is an important debate the American people care about. As I said in the letter, millions of Americans face real dislocation and pain under ObamaCare. They are losing--in millions upon millions of cases--the health care plan they wanted to keep and they were promised they could keep. They are

losing their ability to see the doctor they love and were promised they could continue to see. That number in Louisiana alone is 93,000 families.

They face skyrocketing premiums in many cases. Yet, as all of that goes on, Washington enjoys this Washington exemption from ObamaCare. Some Members of Congress, in particular--apparently, according to press reports, that includes the majority leader Mr. Reid--are using this end run around the clear language of the ObamaCare law and exempting much of their staff.

I think it is incumbent upon the distinguished majority leader to come clean and answer these four very legitimate, very straightforward questions in an open, transparent, written, and straightforward way.

I am sorry he could not join me on the floor right now to discuss this matter. I welcome that conversation at any point in the near future, and I certainly look forward to his written responses to these questions. I think the American people deserve that, at a very minimum.

I also think they deserve--at a very minimum--what I have been fighting for months: Fair up-or-down votes on my Show Your Exemptions proposal and No Washington Exemptions from ObamaCare proposal. The first is real simple. It simply mandates that every Member disclose how they are handling their office. It is the same sort of question and goes to the same sort of information I am asking directly of Senator Reid.

The No Washington Exemptions from ObamaCare ends the end run around-- ends that special status, that special treatment for Congress and our official staff. It would also put them in the same category of having to go to the exchanges with no special treatment or subsidy. It would include the President, Vice President, White House staff, and political appointees.

Unfortunately, again, the majority leader has blocked all of my attempts to simply get a vote on these matters. I am not asking everyone to agree with me; it is a free country, but I think I deserve a vote. I think the American people deserve a debate and a vote, and so I will continue fighting for fair up-or-down votes on the Senate floor on both my disclosure proposal, Show Your Exemptions, and the ultimate fix, No Washington Exemptions from ObamaCare.

I will continue that work, and I look forward to the majority leader's response to this letter.

I yield the floor.