[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 19 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S668-S670]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I rise to talk about what is going on 
in the Senate right now and the work that is done. It is early in the 
morning right now. It is 8 a.m. In Senate time, we have already done a 
series of votes that started at 6:30 this morning to be able to work 
through some of the nominations, and we have a great deal of work to be 
done.
  In the middle of the work that we are taking on right now, there is a 
lot of conversation about personnel. As you know well, the Senate is in 
the personnel business as much as we are in the legislative business, 
especially at the beginning of a Presidential term. One of the biggest 
decisions that we will make in the Senate will be the Supreme Court.
  Americans voted last year, in great measure, about the Supreme 
Court--in the direction of the Supreme Court. President Trump put out a 
list of 21 individuals he said he would choose from so the American 
people would be fully aware that this is the type of individual he 
would go after, and you can look at any of these to be able to evaluate 
it.
  As I looked through that list of 21, one name stuck out to me. It is 
the name Neil Gorsuch, who is from Oklahoma, as many people in this 
Chamber know. Neil Gorsuch represents the Tenth Circuit. He served on 
that circuit with great distinction, which includes Oklahoma. We have 
been able to see his work in what has happened on the bench, the 
opinions he has put out and the consistency, how he has been respected 
by individuals on both sides of the aisle throughout Oklahoma and 
across the Tenth Circuit.
  Neil Gorsuch went onto the bench in 2006. He was put on the bench by 
President Bush. What is interesting is this body, when they debated 
Neil Gorsuch in 2006, unanimously approved him with a voice vote. Not a 
single Senator opposed Neil Gorsuch when he went onto that Tenth 
Circuit bench in 2006. That means at that time Senator Barack Obama 
supported him. Senator Hillary Clinton supported him. Senator Joe Biden 
supported him. Senator Chuck Schumer supported him in 2006. All these 
individuals looked at who he was, what he was about, and supported him 
going on the Tenth Circuit bench.
  What has he done since that time? He has been a remarkable judge. He 
has advocated for something very clearly; that is, the role of each 
branch of government and each branch of government doing its job and 
only its job. He

[[Page S669]]

has spoken out on an issue I have spoken out on this floor about 
several times and oftentimes in committee, an issue called Chevron 
deference. It is one of those issues that most people don't track, but 
I hear a lot of people say the Executive orders are out of control and 
the executive branch is putting all these Executive orders out. I will 
typically smile at folks and say, actually, if you want to go down into 
the heart of it, it is not Executive orders, it is Chevron deference.
  In the 1980s, the Supreme Court gave the ability to every President 
to interpret the law as they choose to and to be able to put 
regulations in if under this term they were reasonable in 
interpretation. In other words, if a piece of legislation mentioned a 
topic, then a President could create regulations around it.
  It started slow, but I will tell you that has accelerated in the last 
several years. What has happened in the last several years is, 
Presidents have reached in, looked at a statute, tried to find a gray 
area of the statute, and used their deference ability to be able to 
interpret it.
  In his writings, Neil Gorsuch has stepped out and said what that 
does, to be able to give that kind of deference to any President, is to 
give the President the ability to literally legislate an issue and then 
implement the issue and do his own interpretation of the issue. That is 
all three branches all piled into one. That is the President having the 
ability to say I am also the Court, I am also the legislative branch, 
and I am going to execute this out. That is a government out of 
balance.
  What Judge Gorsuch has done is over and over again pushed out this 
basic judicial philosophy that our Nation was founded on three separate 
parts of government; that the legislative branch is the only branch 
that legislates; that the executive branch carries it out; and there is 
only one branch that interprets the law, and that is the courts.
  If we were to move back to that simple model, it gives balance and 
consistency to all individuals to be able to know what the law says, 
what is the law, and to be able to actually push that out in such a way 
that people can trust it stays consistent.
  I am proud to be able to sit down and have conversations with Neil 
Gorsuch in the days ahead. I am looking forward to getting a chance to 
meet with him in my office and to be able to work through other areas 
and issues he faces.
  When President Trump selected Neil Gorsuch and suggested him for the 
bench, as I have mentioned before, my first thought was we couldn't 
have a better judge to be able to come out of the Midwest and to be 
able to speak out for the issues that real Americans want to be able to 
speak out for and to be able to have a Court that is consistently 
speaking, ``What did the law say when it was written? Let's just do 
that.''
  There are a lot of other personnel issues that are in front of the 
Senate right now. Betsy DeVos is in the process of what is called a 
cloture vote right now for Secretary of Education. That is final 
closing of debate and to be able to move to a vote that will happen 
Monday or Tuesday of next week.
  I will tell you, there has been a lot of conversation about Betsy 
DeVos, and I have heard the debate on this floor and in conversations 
and things I have read. What is interesting to me is, to be able to 
hear person after person stand up and say she is not for public 
education.
  Let me tell you where I am on this. Nine out of ten students in our 
Nation are in public schools. I grew up in public schools. My kids 
attend public schools. Many of my family members work in public schools 
or have worked in public schools. I am very passionate about what 
happens in our public schools because the vast majority of our students 
will be influenced and will be trained in our public schools. That has 
to be a primary focus of what we do.
  What is interesting to me is, Betsy DeVos was very outspoken during 
her confirmation process about her support for public schools. Did her 
children attend public schools? No, they did not, as Barack Obama's 
children did not attend public schools, as many other wealthy families' 
children did not attend public schools. Many wealthy families choose to 
do that because they have that option. Betsy DeVos, though, has been a 
person to raise her hand and say: Why do only wealthy families get to 
choose where their kids go to school? Why is that? Why don't other 
families have the same option that wealthy families have? But Betsy 
DeVos has been outspoken in saying it is a main responsibility to be 
able to focus on the improvement of our public schools because, again, 
that is where the vast majority of our students attend school.

  It has also been interesting to me that all of these statements 
against Betsy DeVos often don't take into account this basic thing: 
Betsy DeVos for decades has been passionate about trying to help 
students in the inner city, students who are in poverty--any student--
to be able to have every opportunity in education they can possibly 
have. I would think that as a nation we would encourage that, and that 
would be a positive thing rather than a negative thing.
  In 2015, this body looked at a public school education law called No 
Child Left Behind and said that the direction of public school 
education was going the wrong way. And for 15 years, we have had 
mandates coming down on our schools from Washington, DC, mandating what 
type of curriculum they use in their school, what kind of teacher 
evaluation is done for our public school teachers, what kind of testing 
requirement will come down on our schools. This body, with 85 of 100 
voting for it, said that No Child Left Behind is putting Federal 
mandates on every school. The place where those decisions should be 
made is not Washington, DC; it is in local districts--done by parents, 
done by teachers, done by superintendents, and done by State 
legislators. That is exactly what Betsy DeVos has said as well.
  Betsy DeVos has been very clear. She is not trying to promote every 
State and every district doing charter schools, allowing vouchers for 
private schools, allowing other options. That is completely the 
decision of the school. While I have heard people say that if she is 
put in place, she will take away all this money from the schools, it is 
not her role nor her capacity to even do that. She has been very clear 
in saying that all of those decisions are made by local districts and 
by State legislators and by parents--where the decisions should be 
made.
  Betsy DeVos has been very clear that No Child Left Behind was the 
wrong direction. In a very bipartisan way, 85 Members of this body 
agreed with that 2 years ago. President Obama agreed with that 2 years 
ago. And we all said that the best place for education decisions to be 
made is at the local level.
  Betsy DeVos was asked very directly: Will you go to these districts 
and try to impose on them to be able to put charter schools and private 
school access there? Her answer was: No, it is up to that local 
district what they choose to do--but nor would she try to stand in the 
way. If a local district or if a State chose to provide other options, 
it is not her role in the Federal Government to try to stand in the way 
of that. Quite frankly, I find it refreshing that someone would say: We 
are not going to run your school from Washington, DC. What you choose 
to do in your schools, you are allowed to do.
  Again, there has been a lot of conversation about charter schools and 
other options that are out there. I hear people all the time say that 
there is a problem with vouchers. How could the Federal Government be 
involved in any money going to private schools or public schools or 
whatever that may be? We settled that issue decades and decades ago. It 
is called the GI Bill. When the GI Bill was passed after World War II, 
the Federal Government told those veterans coming back from the war: 
You can choose to go to any school you want to go to--public school, 
private school, wherever it may be. The GI Bill is still considered one 
of the most effective tools that our Nation has ever done in higher 
education. It is a voucher program. And many people have not had the 
opportunity to think through: What does this mean?
  Again, Betsy DeVos has been very clear in saying it is not her desire 
to be able to impose that on every State, but if a State chooses to do 
that, why would we stop them when we have already seen clear evidence 
that the GI Bill was already successful in its time, going back now 60-
plus years? It is an

[[Page S670]]

issue that we look at and say: Why would we stand in the way of charter 
schools when, in the past, they have been very well received by 
Republicans and Democrats alike?
  President Obama was a supporter of charter schools. Both of his 
Secretaries of Education were outspoken supporters of charter schools. 
In fact, one of them helped found a charter school. Charter schools are 
public schools, and they are received well.
  In my State of Oklahoma, we just had another school that came online 
that is a charter school that has been approved by our State board of 
education in a unanimous vote just a few weeks ago. These are decisions 
that are made by local districts. These are decisions that don't work 
in every area, in every location, especially in many rural areas. It 
doesn't work the same way. So why don't you allow that local district 
to make those decisions? Why don't you allow that State to make that 
decision? Why don't you give the authority to Oklahoma to do it? Let's 
not ask Betsy DeVos; in fact, allow Congress to hold her to account to 
make sure that our Secretary of Education is not trying to impose on 
our States what she wants to do but is allowing our State to do what we 
want to do. What we ask of a Secretary of Education is not to run our 
schools but to stay out of our schools' business and to allow us to be 
able to make those decisions.
  She is not going to step in and try to take funds away. Those are not 
her funds to give and to be able to monitor. Our decision is--what do 
we want to do as a State in education? What options do we want to 
provide to our kids? What I would ask most of a Secretary of Education 
is to leave us alone and allow us to do what we can for our kids.
  Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with school choice, even as a 
parent who sent my kids to public schools when I could have sent them 
to private schools. I thought the school was doing a great job in my 
area. I was glad for my kids to be able to be involved in it.
  But why would we ever tell a parent: If you will give us just 5 more 
years, we will get this school cleaned up and turned around. Their 
child doesn't have 5 more years. Their child has one shot. And if they 
wait 5 more years, they graduate from high school and without the 
opportunities they needed. It may work for their younger brother, but 
they couldn't wait.
  Why don't we give that ability back to the parent? As an avid 
supporter of public education, as a person with deep respect for 
teachers in my school, as a person who--I myself have a secondary 
education degree from college; I spent 22 years working for students, 
and I cannot tell teachers enough: Thank you for your thankless 
service. They spend all day with students who don't want to be there 
most of the time. They deal with parents at night who are upset that 
their child got a B-plus rather than an A. And they work tirelessly 
through a lot of bureaucracy. We are grateful for that. I can assure 
them that this Congress will make sure that no Secretary of Education, 
including the next one, reaches into any classroom and tells them how 
to do their business.