[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.