Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to again advocate for no Washington exemption from ObamaCare. This is an issue I have talked about with several of our colleagues in this body, and I have been joined by many supporters in the House of Representatives. I believe it is very important.

As we hear story after story from Americans in each of our States about what they are facing--being dropped from policies they liked and wanted to keep, having premium increases of 1,000 percent in some cases, getting their work hours cut back to under 30 hours a week--the fact remains that Washington has essentially an exemption from all of that pain. Washington has a big taxpayer-funded subsidy that nobody else in America at the same income level can get, and that really needs to end.

One critical component of this issue is the fact that even though the ObamaCare statute clearly said that every Member of Congress and all of their official staff had to go to the exchanges for their health care-- and of course mentioned nothing about any huge taxpayer-funded subsidy--in fact, that language was considered and not included. Even though that is crystal clear under the statute, the Obama administration issued a special rule to get around that clear language. Part of that rule, which I think is outrageous on its face, says: Well, we don't know who official staff are. We cannot determine that, so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to determine who their official staff are. As long as they deem certain staff nonofficial, then they don't have to go to the exchanges at all. They don't have to follow that clear mandate in the statute itself.

Well, again, when we are talking about folks who work on our staff, committee staff, and leadership staff, that is ridiculous. They are clearly official staff. They are not campaign staff. They are not off Capitol Hill and outside of government. They are not working for other entities. They are clearly official staff. This is just one of the major ways this illegal rule does an end run around the clear language of the statute.

In reaction to that part of the illegal rule, I introduced a bill that simply says these decisions by each individual Member of the Senate and the House need to be made public. There needs to be full disclosure when anybody is using this end-run around and saying: Yes, this person works for me but somehow they are not ``official,'' so they do not have to follow the mandate of ObamaCare to go to the exchanges. That information should absolutely be public, and I put that in the form of a bill which I have filed both as a freestanding bill and as an amendment to the measure before the Senate today.

Whatever we think about the underlying issues--and I know there is disagreement--to me it should be a no-brainer that there is full disclosure about how each individual office handles the situation. That is not fully disclosed now. Some Members may choose to say it to the press, to answer press questions, but it is not public information. It seems clear to me that how each office elects to handle that situation, how each elected Member elects to handle that situation, should be, by definition, public information, fully disclosed.

The measure I am talking about right now, that is all it does. It does not prohibit anything else from going on. I object to that. I have other measures I will push to prohibit it. But all the measure I am talking about right now does is make sure that information, that election by each individual Member, is public, that there is full disclosure about something I think clearly the public has a right to know about. So I am simply on the floor lobbying for that measure to pass and lobbying for a vote opportunity up or down on that important provision.

My first choice would be a simple vote on the measure in front of the Senate right now, the drug compounding bill. I have no interest in delaying progress of that bill. I simply want an amendment vote on the measure I am describing. We can vote it up or down. Either way, I think it is crystal clear this bill will proceed to become law. If my amendment is adopted, it would be voted on in the House. I think it would clearly be passed, become law. That is my first choice request here.

If that is not possible, I do have a second choice request, which is to simply make this vote in order in the context of the next major bill coming to the floor, the National Defense Authorization Act--again, a simple amendment, a simple vote. I have no interest in delaying the time running on the consideration of this bill, on delaying votes on this bill, or of delaying debate and voting on other amendments on the Defense authorization bill. It seems to me that is a very basic, straightforward request: a vote on a pure disclosure provision.

By the way, this provision has been hotlined on the Republican side, and there is no Republican objection to the substance of this provision. It is pure disclosure. We all think it should be public information. There is no objection.

So I would simply ask unanimous consent to proceed in this way and expedite, in the process, consideration of all of this, including the compounding bill on the floor right now. The distinguished floor manager for the bill said a few minutes ago he does not want delay on this bill. I do not want it either. There does not have to be any delay, and, in fact, this unanimous consent will expedite all of that consideration.

In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3204, the compounding bill, be yielded back; that the motion to proceed be agreed to; that my amendment No. 2024 be the only amendment in order; that no second-degree amendments be in order; and that the amendment be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption; I further ask that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote on my amendment; following the disposition of my amendment, that the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Well, Mr. President, reclaiming my time, that is unfortunate.

That could dispose of this bill and pass this bill today--a very straightforward, expeditious way of passing this bill with no delay.

I said I had a second choice, a path forward which I think is very reasonable as well, related to the National Defense Authorization Act.

So let me propose this unanimous consent request: I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3204, the compounding bill, be yielded back; that the Senate proceed to H.R. 3204; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; I further ask that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of S. 1197, the national defense authorization bill; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be called up, and that notwithstanding rule XXII, my amendment remain in order; that no second-degree amendments to my amendment be in order; and that the amendment be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for passage.

Well, Mr. President, reclaiming my time again, I think that is unfortunate. That would be an even quicker route forward on the compounding bill because had that unanimous consent request been agreed to, the compounding bill would have just passed the Senate. It would have happened right now, and we would move on to something that clearly needs time for debate and discussion and amendments, the National Defense Authorization Act.

In closing, let me underscore all I am seeking, urging, and, yes, demanding is a clear up-or-down vote on a pure disclosure provision: let the public know, as I think they clearly have a right to, how each individual Member is handling the situation. If a Member actually has the gall, in my opinion, to say: No, all these people who work for me are not ``official staff'' and therefore they can right out ignore the clear language and mandate of ObamaCare that says Congress and all staff must go to the exchanges for their health care--people have a right to know that.

By the way, a lot of Members, including myself, say: No, we are all going to the exchanges. That is what the law says. It is perfectly clear, and that is what we are going to live by. A lot of Members are doing that.

Either way, the public should know what is going on. There should be full disclosure, and that is all the provision I am discussing today does.

It has been completely cleared by hotline on the Republican side. There is no objection. I would urge us to move forward with a simple, straightforward vote on it, so we can expedite consideration of this bill on the floor, so we can move more quickly to the national defense authorization bill, which does merit a lot of significant floor time, so we can have amendment votes on that bill immediately and not have any controversy about that.

I urge that reasonable and expedited and clear path forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished floor manager. I want to respond very briefly. My goal is a clear up-or-down vote on this pure disclosure proposal. I am open for suggestions for that to happen in any reasonable timeframe, meaning this calendar year.

I have focused on these two bills simply because it seems to me, from what I know of the Senate schedule and floor activity, these are going to be the only opportunities in terms of amendments proposed. If there are other opportunities we can identify for this year, if we can identify an opportunity for a vote on a freestanding bill, I am all ears. I am completely open to that. I want more amendment votes in the Senate, not fewer. If there is a side-by-side idea, that is fine by me. I am completely open to that. I simply made these concrete suggestions because, based on what I know of the majority leader's plans for the rest of the calendar year, these are going to be the amendment opportunities.

By the way, the only reason I put in my second consent to turn to the Defense bill is because that is exactly what the majority leader articulated as his desire, his plan, to turn to that as soon as possible, to take up amendments.

So I am open for any reasonable opportunity this year for this vote. Again, this is a pure disclosure provision. I do not see why it should be partisan or controversial. It has been cleared through the hotline on my side. So if there are any other suggestions of how this can happen, I am completely open to that.

Unfortunately, I had a phone call with the distinguished majority leader last week and proposed various options. His response was simply: No. No. No. No. No other ideas, no other options. No. But I am completely open to those other ideas. It is obviously part of the tradition of the Senate that nongermane amendments are considered all the time. In fact, with regard to the Defense bill, that is the norm, not exception. There are usually significant nongermane amendments, often by the majority side, sometimes by the majority leadership, which are critical votes on the Defense authorization bill. That is not unusual at all.

I am for more amendment votes, if there are alternative ideas on this topic, more amendment votes there, not fewer. So I look forward to moving forward in a productive, effective way toward getting this simple vote on disclosure and toward moving in an expedited way through this bill and to the Defense bill and whatever else is on the Senate calendar as determined by the majority leader. But, again, so far the response is no, across the board, not any sort of alternative suggestion.

Finally, with regard to the idea of having one vote and one vote only, there is a clear practical problem with agreeing to that. That is the following: For instance, what if there were one vote on my disclosure provision on the Defense authorization bill? That bill is going to a conference committee, so it would obviously be possible for my amendment to be adopted 100 to 0 and then be dumped in the conference committee and stripped from the bill. Then I would have forgone the opportunity to ever bring up the subject again this entire Congress. I mean that is a fool's agreement. I am not going to agree to a fool's agreement. I need to be able to protect my right to revisit the issue, particularly when it would pass through a vote under that scenario and then be stripped in conference.

So I hope we find a productive way forward. Again, this is a pure disclosure provision. I am going for a simple up-or-down vote in whatever context presents itself this calendar year, on this bill or any bill. I am open to other suggestions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to urge my colleagues again to focus on an important issue in the overall ObamaCare debate; and that is how Washington fares under ObamaCare, and does Washington live by the same rules, the same laws it passes on the rest of America?

All across the country, as we see daily in news reports, Americans are struggling with real issues and real challenges created by ObamaCare. We need to fix those issues and those challenges. We need to get it right. But at the same time as that is going on in the real world, Washington--leaders here--basically get an exemption, a carveout, special treatment, a subsidy. That is particularly egregious and particularly unfair when ordinary Americans suffer under these very real challenges.

That is why I have introduced my No Washington Exemption from ObamaCare bill, and that is why I continue to work hard with many other Members--we have significant coauthors here and in the House--to get that passed.

With regard to Congress, the ObamaCare statute actually got it right. And with regard to Congress, all we are asking for is that we live by the statute, live by the law. That statutory language says clearly that every Member of Congress and all of our congressional official staff go to the exchanges for our health care and be treated just like other Americans going to the exchanges--many of them being forced off plans, employer plans they like, and having to go to the exchanges--no special treatment, no special exemption or carveout or subsidy.

The problem is that after the law passed--I guess it was a classic case of what Nancy Pelosi said: We need to pass the law in order to figure out what is in it--because after ObamaCare passed with that specific statutory language, a lot of folks on Capitol Hill read it, figured out what was in it, and said: Oh, you know what. We can't have this. We can't live with this. And then they furiously started lobbying for a way out, for an end-run around: And sure enough, they got it. The Obama administration issued a special rule for Congress to take all of that financial sting out of the provision.

The rule basically said two things, both of which I think are outrageous and contrary to the statute itself. First of all, it said: I know the law says all official staff go to the exchanges. But we don't know who that is. We don't know who official staff are. So we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to designate who is official staff who must go to the exchanges for their health care.

Well, I think that is flat-out ridiculous. The law, the statute, clearly says all official congressional staff. To create this opportunity for exemption, where each individual Member designates staff as official or not, is silly. That designation, by the way, happened last week, and some Members have actually said: None of my staff is official. I have no official staff for purposes of this section, so none of my staff go to the exchanges. That is outrageous. Other Members said: Well, my personal office staff is official but committee staff, no; leadership staff, no. That is outrageous too.

The second thing this illegal rule did to get around the impact of this provision of ObamaCare is to say: Well, for Members and staff who do go to the exchanges, they get to take with them a huge taxpayer- funded subsidy--a big subsidy no other American at that income level gets. That is not in the ObamaCare statute either, and that is contrary to the ObamaCare statute. In fact, that specific language was considered for inclusion and was not put in--proof that was not the intent of that section of ObamaCare.

I believe that is outrageous as well and defeats the whole purpose of the section, which is to make sure Members of Congress and our staff walk in the same shoes as other Americans, 8 million-plus of whom are being forced off coverage they like and being forced on to that ObamaCare exchange.

That is why I have joined with others to push this No Washington Exemption from ObamaCare language.

As I mentioned, one key element is this election that this illegal rule creates, where every individual Member of Congress determines who on their staff goes to the exchange or does not. As I said, in some cases, Members say: I have no official staff. Nobody has to live by the law, nobody has to live by this mandate, which is particularly outrageous.

To add insult to injury, these individual decisions by every Member of Congress are not public. This is all secretive. This is hidden from the public. Some Members have said what they are doing through the press, but the full information, each individual Member's election in this regard is not public.

So as soon as that loophole was created, I filed another bill, another piece of legislation, that simply says we are going to make all of these decisions public. Everybody has a right to know how each Member of the Senate, how each Member of the House is handling the situation. That is my Show Your Exemptions bill, which I filed about 10 days ago.

I think it should be a no-brainer. I think it should be beyond debate. Whatever you think about the underlying issue, whatever you think about ObamaCare, shouldn't this decision of each individual Member be made public? Shouldn't the public have a right to know? That is why I filed this bill, and that is why I am pushing for a vote on this bill.

Getting a vote on that proposal will be a key priority of mine, particularly when we consider the drug compounding bill in the near future and when we consider the Department of Defense authorization bill. It is going to be my key priority: to get a simple vote on that simple proposal. Again, I believe that should be a no-brainer, that this information--which does involve how taxpayer dollars are being treated, which does involve how congressional offices are handling the situation--that information one way or the other be made public. You do not need to editorialize about it. Everybody can make up their own mind about what they think about the underlying issue, about what they think about ObamaCare, but shouldn't that information be made public?

We need to vote on that proposal, and I urge us to move and agree quickly to

have a vote, either in the context of the drug compounding bill or the Defense authorization bill over the next few weeks. Those are probably going to be the only opportunities for a vote this calendar year. I think it is certainly fair and reasonable to get that vote, have the American people be able to see that information, and that is the only opportunity I am likely to have in the Senate this calendar year.

Again, whatever my colleagues think about the underlying issue, certainly whatever we all think about ObamaCare, I would hope we can all agree--that election, that information, how each individual Member of the Senate, each individual Member of the House, handles the situation should be made public. It certainly involves public policy and taxpayer dollars and how we run Congress. It should be made public.

I urge my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--to unite around that reasonable, commonsense proposal and get that information out to the public, as it should.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Excuse me. I withhold my suggestion of the absence of a quorum, but I do yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on this nomination and to oppose it because of the recent actions of the Office of Personnel Management with regard to the Washington exemption from ObamaCare. I voted just now against cloture on the nomination, and I will vote against the nomination itself later today because of these very serious matters.

OPM, the office to which this nominee is nominated and which she would head, has issued an illegal rule that is very offensive and flies in the face of the ObamaCare statute language itself, and this nominee has pledged to continue to enforce that illegal rule and illegal policy.

Furthermore, OPM has completely stonewalled Members, including myself, my colleague Senator Heller, and others regarding how they came to that decision and, importantly, whom they talked with, whom they e- mailed with, and whom they met with in coming to the decision to create this illegal Washington exemption.

Let me back up a little bit and explain exactly what we are talking about. Really, this story started several years ago in the ObamaCare debate. During the original debate on the ObamaCare statute, several conservatives, including myself, pushed an amendment that said every Member of Congress and all of our official congressional staff have to use the same fallback plan as is there for all other Americans-- originally, it was called the public option, and then it became known as the exchanges--no special rules, no special treatment, no special subsidy. In fact, that is one of the very few battles in that debate we won because that provision was adopted during the consideration of the ObamaCare statute. It was adopted right here in the Senate.

So in the statutory language as it finally passed into law is that section, and that section says very clearly that every Member of Congress and all of our official congressional staff have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges for our health care--the same fallback plan as is there for all other Americans--no special rules or privileges or subsidies or exemptions. We go there. Well, I guess this became an example of what Nancy Pelosi was talking about when she famously said: Well, we have to pass the law in order to figure out what is in it-- because the law did pass. It had that specific statutory provision. Then people on Capitol Hill started reading it, and they came to that section and a lot of them said: Oh, you know what. We can't live with this. We can't have this. We can't be pushed to the same fallback plan as all other Americans. We can't stand for this.

From that moment on, a furious lobbying campaign and scheming behind the scenes started to avoid that provision fully going into effect, to avoid the pain of that provision, the pain of ObamaCare that millions of other Americans are facing as we speak. Meetings happened, leadership meetings happened, Member meetings happened, furious scheming behind the scenes, and a lot of lobbying. Ultimately, that lobbying of the Obama administration paid off because in early August of this year, right after Congress got out of town for the August recess, conveniently right after Congress left the scene of the crime, the Obama administration issued a special rule with no basis in the law, in my opinion, no basis in the ObamaCare statute. This special rule was a special exemption for Congress, a carve-out to take all of the financial sting out of that ObamaCare section.

What this special OPM rule is--and, again, OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, was the agency that came up with this illegal rule after this furious lobbying, after President Obama became personally involved, literally personally participated in the discussions leading to this rule. What this illegal rule does is essentially two things. First of all, the rule says: Well, ``official congressional staff''--we do not know who that is. We cannot possibly determine who official congressional staff are, so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to figure out who is their official staff.

Well, I would submit that is just ludicrous on its face. Congressional staff is congressional staff. Official staff is anyone who works for us through the institution of Congress versus outside entities and institutions, such as our campaign staff. So leaving it up to each individual Member of Congress is contrary to the statute on its face. It is outrageous on its face. But under this OPM rule, that is exactly what they do. So an individual Member of Congress can say: Well, these 10 people are not official staff. They are on my staff, but for some magical reason they are not official for purposes of this mandate. In fact, under this rule a Member can say: Nobody on my congressional staff is official staff for purposes of this mandate. And we see Members doing that as we speak. We see examples of that being reported in the press as we speak--Members deciding, ``Well, nobody is official staff. I do not have official staff'' because it will mean they will have to go to the ObamaCare exchange and live by the same rules through the same experience as other Americans. That is flatout ridiculous.

But that is not the only thing the OPM rule did. It did a second thing that is perhaps even more outrageous. It said Members of Congress and staff who do go to the exchange--they get to take along with them a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy that no other American at similar income levels has, enjoys, going to the ObamaCare exchanges. This is a huge subsidy worth at least $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 or $11,000 for families. Again, no other American at similar income levels is privy to that sort of subsidy.

Again, I believe this part of the OPM rule is flatout illegal. It is not in the ObamaCare statute. There was discussion of it. There were drafts that allowed that to happen, but the language that was put in the law did not include that subsidy. It was specifically left out. And, in fact, magically transforming what was, under previous law, a Federal employees health benefits plan subsidy, magically transforming

that into some ObamaCare exchange subsidy--that is contrary to law, and that is beyond OPM and the administration's legal authority, but they just did it because they could to bail out Washington, to bail out Congress. Well, this is outrageous and it is illegal.

As soon as I heard of this proposed rule in early August, I joined with many colleagues, House and Senate, and I appreciate all of their leadership. I am joined by many colleagues in the Senate whom I specifically want to acknowledge, who are fighting for this change: Senators Enzi, Heller, Lee, Johnson, Inhofe, Cruz, and Graham. We are also joined by House Members, led by Representative Ron DeSantis of Florida. All of us quickly got together and said: This is illegal, this is wrong, and we have to stop it.

So we came up with language to do just that, to reverse this illegal OPM rule and to make sure that every Member of Congress and all of our congressional staff go to the ObamaCare exchanges and that we go there just like other Americans go there--no special exemption or special subsidy or special treatment. Our fix also expands that to the President, the Vice President, their White House staff, and all of their political appointees because that is appropriate as well. So our language says to all those folks--Congress and the administration--you have to get your health care the same way other Americans are in the backup plan, in the fallback plan, in the so-called exchanges. You go to the exchanges, and you get no special treatment, no special exemption, no special subsidy.

This is very important for two reasons. First of all, basic fairness. It should be the first rule of American democracy that what Washington passes on America, it lives with itself. Washington should have to eat its own cooking. It is like going to a restaurant and hearing that the chef in the kitchen never eats there. Something is wrong with that restaurant. Something is wrong with that picture. And something is wrong with Washington when Washington exempts itself over and over from eating its own cooking.

The second reason this is important is a very practical one because the sooner we demand that Washington live by exactly the same rules it imposes on America, the sooner Washington will start getting things right on ObamaCare, on taxes, on regulation across the board. So for that very practical reason, we need to make sure the same rules apply to Washington the same way they apply to the rest of America.

Let me come back to OPM because what we are debating is the nominee to head the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, the bureaucracy that came up with this illegal rule. That nominee has pledged to continue to enforce that illegal rule, to continue to defend that illegal rule.

Also, OPM, to date, has been completely unresponsive-- ``stonewalling'' is the more appropriate term--to all of my and other Members' inquiries about the process they used to come up with this illegal rule. I have written OPM several times. I wrote them immediately after their draft rule was issued. I wrote them very soon after their final rule was issued. I specifically wrote them demanding all emails and other correspondence and other documentation and information they had from Members of Congress, from leadership, from the administration with regard to the work and discussion that went into their rule.

Other colleagues of ours here in the Senate and also in the House have done the same. My distinguished colleague from Nevada Dean Heller talked to the then-OPM Director face to face. He asked the OPM Director: Did you speak with, were you lobbied by Members of Congress or the administration about this rule? That Director said: No, absolutely not. It now turns out that apparently is a lie. According to other sources, there absolutely were discussions, communications, emails, and the like between congressional leadership and the administration and OPM. So Dean Heller was lied to face to face about this by OPM.

I have asked for all of the emails, all of the correspondence, all of the discussions that happened leading up to this rule involving Members of Congress, leadership, and also the President and the Vice President and members of their administration. That request for information has been completely stonewalled.

So, first, OPM caves to intense lobbying from Washington insiders. Second, it caves and issues an illegal rule contrary to the statutory language of ObamaCare. Third, it stonewalls regarding the process and the conversations and the emails that led to that illegal rule.

We cannot stand for that. That is precisely why I am opposing this OPM nomination and why I voted no on cloture and why I will vote no on the nomination. We need answers. We need to reverse this illegal rule. Yes, we need a vote on the Vitter amendment the distinguished majority leader and others have blocked for months now. We need that vote. We need that vote that has been actively blocked by the majority leader for months.

Let's do things right. Let's get that information from OPM. Let's reverse this illegal rule. Let's vote on this important matter.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin.) The clerk will call the roll.

Madam President, I rise to concur with the House of Representatives to consider and pass what they seem to be focused on, which is a compromise resolution to the crisis before us which includes ``no Washington exemption'' language regarding ObamaCare. I strongly support, of course, that language, and I strongly support that discussion and that effort in the House, and I really encourage all of our House colleagues to look hard at that and act on it. In particular, I would encourage my Louisiana colleagues to do that.

I have pushed this issue ever since we got back from the August recess. As the Presiding Officer knows, as we went into that August recess the Obama administration issued a rule--an illegal rule, in my opinion--without statutory authority, contrary to the ObamaCare statute, that gives Members of Congress and congressional staff special status, special exemption, or special subsidy, if you will, not in the law, and one not enjoyed in that way by any other American. This ``no Washington exemption'' language, which I have been an advocate of with many others here in the Senate and with many House colleagues, would end that special elite status. That is what we need to do.

I think we need to do it for two crucial reasons--first of all, just on principle. I believe it should be the first rule of our democracy that Washington is treated as the rest of America is treated. What is good for America and what Congress and the administration--what Washington passes on America, it lives with itself with no special status, no special rules, no special exemption or subsidy. That should be true across the board. It should certainly be true regarding ObamaCare. That should be the first rule of American democracy.

Washington doesn't want that. It wants to impose these new rules on the rest of America; it doesn't want to live by them itself. It is sort of like when a person walks into a restaurant and hears that the chef never, ever eats at that restaurant, never, ever has a meal out of that kitchen, it makes a person wonder. The same thing is true here on a number of fronts, including ObamaCare.

So the first point is based on pure principle. Washington should live under the same rules it imposes on America across the board, including under ObamaCare. So Washington--Congress, all congressional staff, the President, the Vice President, their political appointees--should have to go to the same fallback option under ObamaCare that is there for all America--the so-called exchanges--and it should do that with no special rules or special deal or special subsidy or special exception. It should do that the same way ordinary Americans do, who in many cases--8 million-plus--are forced out of good health care coverage they have now through their employment and forced onto the ObamaCare exchanges.

The second reason this language is so important is a very practical one, because the sooner we make Washington live by the same ObamaCare rules as the rest of America, the quicker Washington will change ObamaCare in substantial ways, will fix it not just for Washington, as it did through the special illegal Obama administration rule on this subject, but for America. We need to align policymakers' personal interests in Washington along with the interests of the American people. The way we do that is to make them live by exactly the same rules, make them walk the walk of those Americans who have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges, in many cases against their will--8 million-plus-- who were satisfied with the health coverage they had prior to ObamaCare and then who realized that under this law the promise by President Obama that ``if you like the health care coverage you have now, you can keep it''--they realized the hard way that promise was a lie.

So there are two crucial reasons we must pass this language into law: first, the principle, and second, the practicality--first, the principle that Washington should live under the same rules the same way as America and, second, the practicality that we need to visit upon Washington all of the burdens and challenges that face America under ObamaCare, including those 8 million-plus Americans going to the exchanges against their will.

Again, I encourage the House to include this ``no Washington exemption'' language in any compromise they put together with regard to these fiscal issues we are dealing with now. That would be enormously important. It would show leadership. I think it will resonate with the American people. The American people get this issue, and they resent-- rightly so--Washington getting a special exemption or a special subsidy under ObamaCare that no other American in that situation gets.

Again, I urge the House to act on that important language. That would show leadership. That would align our personal interests with the folks we represent. That would honor what should be the first principle of American democracy: Washington lives under the same rules as the rest of America on ObamaCare and on everything else.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, a couple of hours ago I was on the Senate floor urging and encouraging the House to act on a compromise proposal to deal with the current fiscal issues before us that included the ``no Washington exemption'' from the ObamaCare language.

As I said, I think that is very important for two reasons; one, the principle. I think the first rule of American democracy should be that Washington lives by the same rules as it imposes on America under ObamaCare, under everything; secondly, a very practical consideration. I think the quicker we do that, the quicker we start getting things right. The quicker we start understanding in a gut, personal way the real challenges and burdens of ObamaCare, the quicker we start changing that.

I return just a couple of hours later to congratulate the House because they are apparently moving in exactly that direction. All indications are that they will be going to the Rules Committee very soon with a package that features--that has as its centerpiece that ``no Washington exemption'' from ObamaCare language.

Again, I think it is important for all the reasons I said. I also want to point out that assuming the House passes that--I think they are going to tonight--that ``no Washington exemption'' language will be the only thing--the only substantial thing in that proposal that has not been essentially agreed to by Senate Democrats. Everything else is detail, a date here, minor provisions. The only major difference between what the House is hopefully passing tonight and what has been agreed to in discussions by Senate Democrats is that ``no Washington exemption'' language.

So the question will be is this perceived crisis, is this standoff going to continue over that, over Members protecting their wallets, their special elite status, demanding that they are treated differently than other Americans under ObamaCare? Is it going to continue and not be resolved over that?

I think that is what it will all be about, again assuming, as I hope it does, the House passes this proposal tonight. Again, the ObamaCare language, the statute itself does not allow for this special exemption or special subsidy. That is nowhere in the statue. Because of that, it was sort of an example of what Nancy Pelosi said about the ObamaCare statute in general: We have to pass it to figure out what is in it. It passed with language in it that said clearly, Members of Congress and their staff would have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges for their health care--no provisions for any special subsidy.

Then, after it passed, many folks on Capitol Hill read it to figure out what was in it. When they got to that section, they said: Oh, you know what. We cannot live under this. We cannot stand for this.

So then a fierce lobbying campaign started to get the administration to fix ObamaCare--but not to fix it for America, to fix it for Congress. That resulted in a special Obama administration rule that was conveniently issued right as Congress was leaving Washington for the August recess, right as Congress was fleeing the scene of the crime.

That rule did two things, neither of which is in the statute. That is why it is a completely illegal rule, contrary to the statute, in my opinion. First of all, the rule said: When the statute says that Members of Congress and their staff have to go to the exchanges for their health care, we do not know who official staff are. We cannot figure that out, the administrative agency said. So we are going to leave that up to each individual Member of Congress.

That is absurd. The language is clear. All official staff are covered. The administration should have demanded in the rule that all official staff are covered and not leave it up to individual Members. But under this cozy relationship, an individual Member can exempt any staffer he or she likes. In fact, in theory, that Member can exempt all of his staff and say: It is up to me. They are not official staff for purposes of this provision of ObamaCare. That is absurd on its face.

Then the second thing this special rule only did for Congress is say: For those who go to the exchanges, including Members, they get to take a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy with them, a subsidy available to no other American at that income level--no other American. That is not in the ObamaCare statute. That is made up out of thin air in terms of this rule.

So we need to correct that situation. We need to make sure Washington is treated like America; first, because it is the right thing to do. It should be the first guiding principle of American democracy; second, for the practical reasons I stated. The quicker we do that on ObamaCare and across the board, the quicker Washington, the Congress, the President, will start getting important matters, including the impact of ObamaCare, right.

I will in a second. Again, I congratulate the House for doing exactly that, for doing exactly that. Again, I would point out, assuming the House does that and passes that tonight, the only significant difference between their package and what Senate Democrats have agreed to in discussions will be this ``no Washington exemption'' language from ObamaCare.

There will be other very minor differences: a date here, language regarding how income verification is handled, very minor compared to this central issue. So that is what it is coming down to. That will be what Senate action on that House proposal is about.

I will be happy to yield to my distinguished colleague from Illinois.

I am under exactly the same program. What I am suggesting is merely that we follow the law. The distinguished Senator and many of his Democratic colleagues constantly make the point that ObamaCare is the law of the land. He is right. I want to change that, largely; the Senator does not. It is the law of the land as we speak. That law of the land is crystal clear. It has a specific provision about this. It says every Member of Congress, all of their official staff can no longer stay in that plan and have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges, the so-called

fallback provision for the American people.

I think there was a reason for that. I think there was thinking behind that. It is simple; that we should live under that same scenario that millions of Americans have to live under, 8 million-plus, who do not want to have to go to the exchanges, who like the insurance plan they have now, who heard the President say: If you like the plan you have now, you can keep it. They found out after the fact that was not true for them.

There are 8 million-plus who are being forced off coverage they like to go to the ObamaCare exchanges. They do not get any subsidy. They do not get this special treatment. I am suggesting we should not as well.

Yes.

If I can respond and reclaim my time, I do not think that is true at all. I think ObamaCare absolutely forces millions of other Americans into the exchanges. It is not the same mechanism that it is for Members of Congress. It is not an express provision. But it is forcing 8 million-plus Americans into the exchanges against their will nonetheless because there are many Americans who want to keep the coverage they have. They heard over and over from President Obama: If you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. Then they found out that for them that was a lie. They did like the coverage they had. They are losing it against their will. I do not think that is by accident. I think that is by design because the ObamaCare statute creates clear incentives for many employers to get out of the health insurance provision business and to just let their workers go to the exchanges.

So I completely disagree with the statement from the Senator from Illinois that no other American was forced onto the exchanges. Millions of other Americans were forced onto the exchanges, in a different way, but absolutely millions of Americans were forced onto the exchanges against their will.

Yes.

Absolutely. Reclaiming my time and reclaiming the floor, that is absolutely public information. That is true. What I am merely suggesting is that ObamaCare mandates the change. That is the law of the land, as the Senator and his Democratic colleagues make the point many times, and we should live by the law of the land.

As the distinguished Senator from Illinois absolutely knows, there is no provision in the ObamaCare statute for that subsidy to transfer to the exchanges for Members or congressional staff, no provision whatsoever. In fact, having that happen is inconsistent with the law because the requirements of exchange policies are different than the requirements for FEHBP policies, so it is completely inconsistent with the law for that subsidy to follow Members of Congress to the exchanges. It is nowhere mentioned in the statute. It was made up out of thin air under this illegal Obama administration rule with no sufficient statutory basis in the law.

I yield to the Senator.

Reclaiming my time and reclaiming the floor, I did not state that and I will not state that.

What I did say is there is no subsidy available to Members of Congress and congressional staff under the ObamaCare statute. There is no provision in the statute for that old FEHBP subsidy to magically redo itself as an exchange subsidy. There is absolutely no provision of that whatsoever.

Folks, these 8 million Americans who are forced out of the plans they like, they are not getting a subsidy. They are going to the individual exchange, and they are getting no comparable subsidy. If they have low enough income they get a subsidy for being at a certain income level.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor an exemplary young man who has persevered through life's challenges and devoted himself to bettering the lives of children in foster care. As a young boy, Elijah Evans was abused by his family, forcing him to be removed from their care and placed into a foster care program. Quickly winning the love of the nurse assigned to attend to his wounds, Elijah was adopted by Lynore Harding when he was 4 years old. But after being adopted, Elijah did not forget what it was like to live in foster care, or about the more than 400,000 children who are in foster care today.

In 2011, when Elijah was 13 years old, he began raising money to give Christmas gifts to foster children, knowing that the Christmas season often leaves these children with the longing feeling of not being a part of a family. In that year, he was able to raise $5,000 and give Christmas gifts to 72 children. Since then, Elijah has established his own organization, No Use for Abuse, and has continued Christmas of Hope, which is going into its third year. He hopes that he will be able to expand his organization in the future to offer college scholarships to foster children after they graduate from high school.

As a father, I know that every life is incredibly precious. There is always more we can do to increase adoptions, but I'm deeply grateful for everything the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute and the Angels in Adoption do for children. Thankfully, with their help over 50,000 foster children were adopted into loving families last year and given a chance to make a positive difference like Elijah has. Elijah's actions are an extraordinary example of what can be achieved through love and respect for all mankind and a passionate desire to serve others.

Elijah's noble and thoughtful efforts have not gone unnoticed. Aside from positively affecting the lives of so many foster children, Elijah will be recognized for his service by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute at its annual Angels in Adoption awards gala on October 9, 2013. This award honors groups and individuals who have made extraordinary contributions on behalf of children still in need of families, and honorees include such individuals as First Lady Laura Bush, Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy, and Muhammad Ali.

Lastly, I would like to express my appreciation to Lynore Harding for welcoming Elijah to be a part of her loving family and to offer my sincere congratulations and appreciation to Elijah for remembering the experience of being a foster child and for being a positive role model for the children who have not yet been as fortunate.

Mr. President, I come back to the Chamber to urge the following. I hope as we try to resolve this important spending bill that a key part of that resolution is to live by existing law under ObamaCare and make sure that Members of Congress and our staff aren't treated far differently and far better than the American people.

That is what the congressional portion of my ``No Washington Exemption'' bill and amendment is all about. It is a pure and simple principle. I think it is a first principle of democracy, and American democracy should work by that first principle: What is good for America is good for Washington. And what Washington imposes on America, it must live with itself: No special exemptions, privileges, subsidies or rules. The same rules. I think that should be the rule across the board for whatever part of law we are talking about. It should certainly be the rule under ObamaCare.

Indeed, it is the rule under ObamaCare under the statute. What I have been fighting is an illegal regulation promulgated by the Obama administration to get around the clear language and the clear intent of the statute. As the Chair knows, during the ObamaCare debate this issue came up, it was debated, and language was passed here in the Senate and put into the statute. That language says, pure and simple, every Member of Congress and all official congressional staff have to go to the ObamaCare exchanges for their health care, the same as other Americans who are going to the exchange. No special treatment, no special exemption or rules or subsidies. That is the clear language and that was the clear intent.

Amazingly--and I was happy to see it at the time--that language, which I fought hard for, along with many, many others, led on the Senate side by Senator Chuck Grassley--was adopted. That became part of the statute that passed into law. But, apparently, it was an example of that old Nancy Pelosi quote--we have to pass the law to figure out what is in it--because that language that did pass as part of the ObamaCare statute, when lots of folks on Capitol Hill started reading the details and they got to that section, they said: Oh, you know what. We can't live with this. We can't have this. This is a crisis. This would actually apply--the exchanges--to Members of Congress and our staffs, just as they are applied to millions and millions of other Americans-- 8-million plus who are losing their previous employer provided health care, against their will, and being forced to go to the exchanges.

So when that happened, after the passage of ObamaCare, furious scheming and lobbying started going on behind the scenes. This included lobbying of the administration. Harry Reid and many others got involved in asking the President to get personally involved to bail Congress out, to prevent this clear statutory language from having its clear force and effect. And sure enough, that worked. President Obama, according to numerous press reports, got personally involved. He literally picked up the phone, had conversations personally with folks in his administration about this rulemaking--pretty unprecedented--and, sure enough, a rule was issued conveniently right after Congress left town at the beginning of the August recess to flee the scene of the crime.

That rule, the so-called OPM rule--completely illegal, in my opinion, because it is contrary to the statute--does two things. First of all, the rule says: Yes, the statute says all Members of Congress and all official congressional staff go to the ObamaCare exchanges for health care, but we don't know who official staff is. We have no idea. We can't figure that out, so we are going to leave it up to each individual Member of Congress to figure out who among their employees is official staff for purposes of this section, and we are never going to second-guess any decision by any Member of Congress, even though this could result in up to 535 different applications of the law.

I think we should all be able to agree that is flat-out ridiculous. The law is written. It is written clearly. It uses the words: Official congressional staff. For OPM to say, through this rule, we can't figure that out, we will leave it up to each individual Member of Congress, is ridiculous, particularly since that would allow a Member saying no one who works for me is ``official staff'' for purposes of this section. What? They can completely get around the law with regard to staff that way. That is just flat-out ridiculous.

The second thing this illegal OPM rule does is to say that even for Members of Congress and their staff who do go to the exchange for their health care, they get to take with them something that no other American from a big employer in that sort of situation gets to take-- they get to take with them their previous Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan subsidy--a huge taxpayer funded subsidy that no other American at that income level would get. That is completely separate treatment not envisioned by the statute in any way, and not mentioned in the statute in any way. In fact, there are plenty of parts in the statute contrary to that. But they get to take that with them to the exchange.

Is that available to any other American in that situation at that income level? Absolutely not. So again, that is flat-out ridiculous and flat out at odds with the clear statutory language and intent of that provision of ObamaCare.

Ever since we came back into session after the August recess and had the opportunity to correct this egregious illegal OPM rule, I have been fighting alongside others to do just that. I have been fighting along with a number of Senate colleagues, and I thank them all for their active involvement. I have also been fighting alongside Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is leading the House effort, and many, many other House colleagues who are all for this measure.

I want to make clear and underscore, because this is important, that with regard to Members of Congress and staff, this isn't demanding some new law. This isn't demanding some change to ObamaCare. This is saying let us simply live with what the law is. Let us simply live with the clear statutory language. That is what we need to do, and we need to do it because it is fair and right for the American people. We need to do it because Americans are sick and tired, quite frankly, of Washington elites treating themselves like a higher select ruling class.

That is exactly the concept the American revolution was founded on. That is exactly the mindset that led to our breaking away from Britain, which was a monarchy and was governed by that mindset. Yet here we are, as in many other cases, Washington is reintroducing that principle. That is a thoroughly un-American principle. And the first principle of American democracy--and we should affirm it--is that what Washington passes onto America, it lives with itself. Same rules, no special exemptions, no carve-outs, subsidies, or bailouts. What is good for America is good for Washington, and it should be applied equally across the board. Simple concept. Basic concept.

As I said, I would call it the first rule of American democracy, but it is being trampled on in this instance. It is being trampled on as yet again Washington sets itself apart and above the American people as a select elite ruling class. That is wrong, and it is as wrong as yet another of a number of exemptions from ObamaCare; it is wrong as yet another example of special treatment--a carve-out, waivers, or exemptions.

The President often says: This is the law of the land. He is right. So why don't we apply the law of the land as it is written across the board, no exemptions, no waivers, no illegal rules that are contrary to the clear language and intent of ObamaCare. Why don't we start by applying ObamaCare just as it is being applied to America in Washington. Why don't we start by living by the letter and the spirit of the law in saying all Members of Congress and all congressional staff go to the exchanges for their health care and do not take any special taxpayer funded subsidy with them that is unavailable to any other Americans at that income level.

That would be leadership, and that is what we need to do. That is not changing the law. That is living by the law. We need to do that and we need to do it now as part of any resolution to these spending bill disagreements.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to gather around this principle. I urge my colleagues to vote right on this issue. I assure my colleagues they are going to get the chance to vote one way or the other. I am going to continue to demand a clear, clean up-or-down vote on the Senate floor on this issue. We have not had it. I have fought for it for about 4 weeks now. But because of the extraordinary efforts--quite frankly, including threats and intimidation and bribery--of the majority leader, we have not been allowed that clear up-or-down vote. I will assure my colleagues we are going to get it.

I don't know when, I don't know how, because I don't control that, but I am going to make darn sure we are going to get it. And not much, if anything, of substance is going to happen until we do. This is overdue because this goes into effect today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise again to urge both the House and this body to pass into law what should be the rule and the law for everything we do in Washington; that is, to apply the same rules to Washington as are applied to the rest of America, across the board, certainly including ObamaCare. Of course, what I am talking about is ending the special Washington exemption from ObamaCare.

That exemption is moving forward under what I consider a clearly illegal rule issued by the Obama administration. It is illegal because it is contrary to the statute, contrary to the clear language, contrary to the clear intent of an ObamaCare provision that says every Member of Congress and all congressional staff need to be treated the same as the millions of other Americans who are going to the so-called exchanges for their health care; 8 million, against their will, losing their previous employer-provided subsidy.

Let me recount briefly the history of this because it is important. Several years ago during the ObamaCare debate there was a proposal made by many, including myself and one of the leaders was Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and that proposal was actually adopted, amazingly, to my pleasant surprise at the time, and put in the ObamaCare bill. It said just what I mentioned a few minutes ago: Every Member of Congress and all congressional staff need to go to the so-called exchanges for their health care. They need to leave our present Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan which includes our employer-provided subsidy. The idea was simple, and it was a good one, so that we would actually walk in the shoes of other Americans who are living under the challenges and the burdens of this law, including having to get our health care in the exchanges

with no special deal, no special subsidy, no special exemption.

That law was passed as part of ObamaCare, pure and simple, exactly those words.

I guess this is an example of what Nancy Pelosi said: We need to pass the law in order to figure out what is in it. Because after the law passed, with that language in it, lots of folks on Capitol Hill started reading that and they said, Oh, you-know-what; we can't stand for this, we can't live by that. We can't be subject to the same situation as other Americans. So there was furious scheming and gnashing of teeth about how we are going to get out of this burden, even though there was very little broad-based discussion about how we are going to get all of Americans out of that burden they were subjected to.

That developed into furious lobbying of the Obama administration. Many folks in the Senate, led by the distinguished majority leader Harry Reid said: Mr. President, you need to issue a special rule that exempts Congress, that takes the pain out of that provision--a special, unique, special rule, special bailout for Congress. Sure enough, that is what the Obama administration did, conveniently right after we left town for the August recess, right after Congress got away from the scene of the crime.

According to numerous press reports that are not rebutted, President Obama personally got involved. He personally had discussions within his administration, at the urging of Harry Reid and others, and he ensured that this special rule was issued. It does two things, basically. No. 1, it says that even though the ObamaCare statute states plainly and clearly that every Member of Congress and all official congressional staff have to go to the exchanges, we don't know what official staff is, so we are going to leave that up to each individual Member of Congress, and we are not going to second-guess that. So any individual Member of Congress can say certain folks aren't covered by that mandate. They can stay in their current plan. They don't have to be disrupted. In theory, a Member of Congress can say nobody on my staff is part of that official staff for purposes of this mandate. That is silly and ridiculous on its face because the statute is clear.

The second thing this illegal rule does is it says that for Members and any staff who do go to the exchange--what is supposed to be the fallback position for Americans and for Congress--for Members and staff who do go to the exchange, they get to take their very generous taxpayer-funded subsidy with them, even though that is not available to any other person losing employer-based coverage and who is going to the exchange against his or her will. So that deal isn't available to anyone but the select ruling class.

That is why I think this rule is completely illegal, and that is why I know it flies in the face of what I consider the first most basic rule of democracy; that laws passed by Congress, by Washington, should be applied to Washington the same as they are applied to America. That should be true in ObamaCare. That should be true across the board.

To react to this illegal Obama administration rule, I joined with many colleagues in the Senate--and I wish to thank all of my cosponsors, including Senator Enzi, Senator Heller, and several others--I am forgetting the entire list--and Members of the House who have identical legislation and identical language. They are led by Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida. Ron Johnson is another colleague I was trying to think of from Wisconsin who is another leading coauthor. I wish to thank all of them for leading this fight.

Our language does two simple things. First of all, it negates this illegal Obama administration rule that is a special exemption, a special bailout for Congress against the clear language and intent of ObamaCare. Secondly, it broadens that rule and also applies it to the President and the Vice President and all of their political appointees.

That is the ``no Washington exemption'' language. That is the Vitter amendment in the Senate, with many other cosponsors. That is the DeSantis amendment in the House, with many House cosponsors. I urge all of my colleagues to come together around that commonsense, fair language, which again simply ensures what I think should be rule No. 1 of our American democracy: Whatever Congress passes for America, it applies equally to itself; whatever Washington imposes on America, it applies equally to Washington, to policymakers in Washington.

We are making progress because there are reports that the House may very well take up this exact language tonight as part of the continuing discussion about a spending bill, and I urge the House to do that, to stand with the American people--not to stand with Washington but to stand tall with the American people--and say, yes, it should be that even playing field, and whatever is passed on America should be applied equally in the same way. No special deals or exemptions or subsidies should be applied to Washington.

I urge all of my colleagues here, Republicans and Democrats, to support that effort, to support that simple, basic, fair language, to support it on ObamaCare, to support it across the board because it is essential that what Washington passes on America is applied with equal force and effect on Washington. If we did that under ObamaCare, I am convinced we would rush with greater determination, speed, and focus to fix the very real problems of ObamaCare because we would be vested in it. If we did that on other laws, I am convinced it would have the same positive effect. Let's do it, No. 1, because it is fair and right; and No. 2, because our personal interests should be completely aligned, should be the same as those of the American people, and that will get us to act. That will get us to fix things. That will get us to fight in the right direction, Republicans and Democrats together.

Again, I urge support of this new Washington exemption language. I urge the House to vote positively on that tonight. I urge the Senate to accept that fundamental principle, that important language, which, as I said, I think is the first core rule of democracy.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

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. 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. 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.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

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?

Will the Senator yield for a further question?

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?

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

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. 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.

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. 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.

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

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.

I object.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.