[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 14619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      NO SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UNDER OBAMACARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Ross) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, you know the only thing worse right now than 
having the implementation of this health care law known as ObamaCare on 
October 1 would be the implementation of this law with special 
consideration to Members of Congress. And some may say that's not going 
to happen because Members of Congress are subjected to and not exempted 
from ObamaCare; and the short answer to that is yes, but the real 
answer is no. And the real answer is no because there is a state of 
confusion over whether we, as Members of Congress and certain staff 
members, can continue to receive a 72 percent contribution to our 
health care benefits.
  Now to understand this, let's go back to how this even became an 
issue. Senator Grassley, at the time that the ObamaCare bill was being 
debated, wanted to make sure that Members of Congress and their staff 
were subjected to the pains and the ills and everything else of 
ObamaCare. He offered an amendment that said:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Members of 
     Congress and congressional employees would be required to use 
     their employer contribution to purchase coverage through a 
     State-based exchange rather than using the traditional 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

  That was offered. What became law is different. The language that 
became law specifically says that Members of Congress and congressional 
staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or 
congressional staff shall be health plans that are either created under 
this act or the exchanges. Then it went on to further say that staff is 
just considered those who are employed by the Members of Congress. It 
doesn't include staff of committee and staff of leadership.
  Now why all the confusion? I don't know, but I know for a fact that 
when the Office of Personnel Management came out with their letter on 
August 7 and said, without any basis--any basis in law or fact--and 
said, you know what, we're going to let Congress continue to have their 
72 percent contribution even though the law was clear when it was 
passed that we are not going to receive anything other than the 
subsidies allowed under the law, and those subsidies only are available 
to those who make 400 percent of poverty level or less.

                              {time}  1115

  And so we're here on the eve of watching a health care plan go into 
place when the American public has given us--and probably deservedly 
so--an approval rating in single digits, and say, There they go again. 
Congress has found a special provision for themselves so they will not 
feel the pain and the economic harm caused by this health care bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we can correct this. We can stand up as a collegial 
body, Republican and Democrat, and say we believe we need to be 
subjected to the law 100 percent and we think OPM is wrong. And if we 
want the American public to have what they desperately need to have in 
this Congress, which is the credibility of this Congress, we need to 
pass my amendment to the continuing resolution being offered today that 
says that this OPM letter was wrong and that all Members of Congress, 
all staff, the President, the Vice President, and all political 
employees will be subjected to the laws of ObamaCare and not receive 
this contribution. My friends back home will not receive this 
contribution. We shouldn't carve out a specialty to ourselves.
  Further, what is worse is that if we don't make some change to this 
law, people will say there will be a brain drain. I see more of a 
litigation train starting--a litigation train because we've already put 
in the law a special class of employees. My employees are now subject 
to the laws of ObamaCare, but the leadership and their employees 
aren't. I see litigation ensuing on employment discrimination cases 
that are absolutely unnecessary and could be avoided if we have the 
foresight, if we have the ability to say, America, we're going to 
correct this; we're going to make sure that we are subject to all the 
laws, 100 percent, the same way we ask you to be.
  Therefore, Members, I ask, I implore you to please consider this 
amendment, consider doing what is right, not only under the law but in 
the eyes of our constituency.

                          ____________________