Sen. Roy Blunt says some are dividing the party on the issue. | AP Photos, John Shinkle/POLITICO GOP vs. GOP in Obamacare squabble

A new GOP vs. GOP battle is brewing over Obamacare — this time, over health care coverage for lawmakers and their staff.

A growing number of Republicans are scoffing at Louisiana Sen. David Vitter’s push to stop federal contributions that will help pay for health coverage for lawmakers and their staff under the new Obamacare exchanges. Vitter’s crusade has effectively put his GOP colleagues in the unenviable position of hurting themselves and their staff financially or siding with another political attack on a law the party universally despises.


The latest pushback is another sign of how the long-running GOP fight to repeal Obamacare has suddenly degenerated into an internal Republican battle, prompting widespread concerns among party elders.

“One of our strengths in this fight — even though we had minority numbers in both the House and the Senate when the law passed — was that no Republicans voted for it in the Senate,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of his party’s leadership. “Somehow, some of our members seem to think there’s forward progress in figuring out ways to divide us on something we’re totally united on. That can’t be a good idea.”

( PHOTOS: 25 unforgettable Obamacare quotes)

In addition to the Vitter effort, tea party conservatives are demanding that any bill to keep the government running past Sept. 30 must also defund Obamacare — an effort that senior Republicans call futile even as it has put House GOP leaders in a jam. And as the conservative House Republican Study Committee prepares to release an alternative health care bill this week, House and Senate Republicans are far from united on the best way to replace Obamacare, more than three years after the law was enacted.

“My personal belief is the only way to get rid of Obamacare is to be intelligent and smart about it and gradually just work on it, work it through,” said Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over health care. “But to expect the government to shut down is not the way to do it.”

The latest fight centers on Vitter’s push to kill an Obama administration regulation that allows the federal government to pay a portion of members’ and staffers’ insurance on the Obamacare exchanges, which they must enter under the new law. It would also require President Barack Obama and White House political appointees to get on the exchanges, too.

Vitter’s demands for a vote have stalled action on a bipartisan Senate energy bill, and whether his plan gets a vote remains to be seen. Sens. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma are the lone Republicans who have signed onto the Vitter plan.

( Also on POLITICO: Reid and McConnell to Boehner: Send something)

Several Republicans won’t say whether they would voluntarily give up the federal contributions if the Vitter amendment fails. But if the Vitter amendment were to pass, staffers may have to incur most — if not, the entire — cost of their premiums or find coverage elsewhere, such as through a spouse, or go uninsured.

The employer contribution could amount to the equivalent of a $5,000 pay cut for a person buying insurance as an individual, according to health care experts. And it could lead to a mass exodus of staffers from Capitol Hill.

“We pay our staff such little money, and they work overtime,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). “And just like every other company in America that I know of, we help pay part of their health insurance premium payments. That’s normal. That’s usual. I think it’s something that we owe our employees if we’re going to continue to have the quality of employees that the country expects us to have.”

Chambliss said he would have no problem eliminating the subsidy for lawmakers but that he wants the federal government to keep paying for staffers’ coverage.

Other Republicans echoed that sentiment.

( Also on POLITICO: Dems vow support for debt limit bill)

“I am concerned that Sen. Vitter’s application of that principle may not be as he intends when it comes to staff,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). “Because it appears the way his amendment is drafted that lower-paid staffers will qualify for neither the subsidy that anyone else making that kind of money would receive on through the exchange — nor will they get the employers’ subsidy. And that concerns me.”

“I’m not worried about me,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “I am worried about the staff.”

Luke Bolar, a Vitter spokesman, shot back in an email, saying: “Lotta Americans getting screwed under Obamacare and won’t get a taxpayer subsidy.”

It’s not only Republicans who are upset: Democrats are also mad at Vitter for demanding a vote and stalling business in the Senate.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Democrats would propose an alternative amendment if the Vitter measure gets a vote. Democrats even weighed offering an amendment barring federal contributions for health care coverage if there were “probable cause” to believe that lawmakers solicited prostitution as a way to needle Vitter over a past sex scandal. But Democrats signaled Tuesday that such a retaliatory plan may not come for a vote.

The health care law put Congress and its staffers in a unique category. It required them to leave the health insurance plan granted to federal employees, leaving them few options besides getting coverage on the exchanges. But the law was silent on whether the government — as their employer — could still contribute to the plans. The government pays up to about 75 percent of lawmakers’ and staffers’ premiums, just as many employers pay for a significant portion of their workers’ coverage. The Obama administration ruled last month that the government would continue to cover that contribution when lawmakers and staffers enter the exchanges.

Vitter and a handful of other Republicans contend that it’s illegal for the government to contribute an employer share for congressional health care costs and that if Americans have to stick to the letter of the law, so should Congress. The Obama administration and Hill Democrats, as well as some Republicans, say that providing an employer contribution is the only fair way to make sure federal workers get an employer subsidy — just like everyone else who gets insurance coverage through a job.

“My first instinct is I don’t see why congressional staff members should be treated differently than all other employees — the several million other employees in the federal government,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). “My concern is about fairness: treating congressional staff the same way the federal employees should be treated.”

But on the floor Tuesday, Vitter argued that “all rules that are passed on for America should be visited on Washington, and we should be treated exactly the same as the rest of America is treated.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the tea party conservative, agreed with that notion. But when asked if he would voluntarily give up the federal contributions to pay for his health care, Paul said he would comply if the rules were the same for all congressional offices.

“Whatever the rules are for everybody, we’ll abide by,” he said.

Asked at a press conference last week if he’d give up his federal contribution if his plan fails, Vitter said: “I’m researching now whether that’s a choice or not.”

But Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) may have found a way around the controversy: forgo the federal contributions and give his aides salary raises in order to pay for the increased health care costs.

“I’m just going to raise their wages,” Coburn said. “No senator really needs that money if they run their office” correctly.