[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 20 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S702-S706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Repealing and Replacing Obamacare

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to briefly discuss a number of 
ongoing efforts in the early days of the 115th Congress. It is a 
strange time to be working on Capitol Hill, as strange as I have seen 
in my four decades in the Senate. That is true for a number of reasons. 
Let me give you an example. Republicans currently control the Senate, 
the House, and the White House, and are in widespread agreement about 
most major policy issues. Sure, there are details that need to be 
worked out, both on the process and the substance on things like tax 
reform, trade, and of course health care reform, but by and large 
Republicans all have the same ultimate goals for these key areas. Yet 
despite the overwhelming consensus that exists on most of these issues, 
there seems to be an obsession with advancing a narrative of a deeply 
divided Republican majority. According to this popular narrative, House 
and Senate Republicans have completely different views on tax reform, 
Republicans in Congress oppose everything President Trump wants to do 
on trade, and Senate Republicans are deeply at odds on

[[Page S703]]

how to press forward on repealing and replacing ObamaCare.
  As chairman of the Senate committee that is right in the middle of 
all these issues, I get asked to comment on these matters, literally, 
dozens of times every day. The questions take many forms. Senator X 
says Congress should do ``blank'' with ObamaCare. What do you think? 
Can the House's tax reform plan pass in the Senate? President Trump 
said ``blank'' today. Is that going to fly in your committee?
  These questions may seem straightforward. However, the underlying 
question behind all of these lines of inquiry is: Will you publically 
disagree with or criticize another Republican so we can write another 
story about Republican divisions? Matters such as repealing and 
replacing ObamaCare or reforming the Tax Code are certainly important 
topics that are rightly under intense public scrutiny. However, given 
that these monumental efforts are still in the early stages, the fact 
that there are some relatively minor differences of opinion shouldn't 
be all that noteworthy. The existence of these differences in the 
initial stages of the process doesn't significantly jeopardize the 
success of these efforts. The purpose of the legislative process--
particularly the process we use in the Senate--is to allow differences 
to be aired and worked through so, at the end of the process, consensus 
can be reached. Differing views on some issues at the beginning of the 
process are to be expected. Once again, they are hardly noteworthy.
  Case in point, Republicans are united in our desire to repeal and 
replace ObamaCare. The vast majority of us want reforms that are more 
patient-centered and market-driven. As far as I know, pretty much all 
of us want to return most of the authority for regulating the health 
care system back to the States. On some of the other questions, let me 
make clear what my position is just so there is no confusion on these 
points. I believe we should repeal ObamaCare--including the taxes--and 
provide for a stable transition period. I believe the work to replace 
ObamaCare should also begin immediately, meaning that our repeal bill 
should include as many ObamaCare replacement policies as procedures 
allow. A more complete replacement can and should be crafted in the 
coming months as we work through some of the more complicated issues. 
That has been my position since roughly March of 2010, when the final 
pieces of ObamaCare were signed into law. I have repeated it numerous 
times over the years. Moreover, I believe most Republicans in Congress 
share that same view.
  Do some Republicans have different views regarding the proper order 
and procedure for this endeavor? I am sure they do. But I don't know of 
a single Republican who does not want to get rid of ObamaCare. I 
certainly don't know any Republicans who are fine with the status quo 
in our health care system. That being the case, no one should be trying 
to parse anyone's words or split hairs in order to manufacture 
divisions in the Republican ranks on repealing and replacing ObamaCare.
  I have little doubt that we can work through whatever differences do 
exist, and, more importantly, I think we will. I am not going to 
speculate today on the floor about what the final process or product 
will look like, but I will say that at the end of the day, only 3 
numbers matter: 218, 51 and 1. Those are the numbers of supporters we 
need at each step to pass an ObamaCare repeal and replacement.
  At this point, given what we currently know, I strongly believe that 
the process I described earlier--a full repeal and a responsible 
transition, coupled with a sizable downpayment on replacement, followed 
by a committed effort to implement additional replacement policies in 
the coming months--provides the best path forward to achieving those 
thresholds. Like I said, most Republicans in Congress agree with me.
  We can discuss other ideas, and I am happy to engage in that 
discussion, but those numbers--218, 51, and 1--have to be the standard 
by which we judge any alternatives. And while I would love to see the 
final product pass with even larger numbers, and even with some 
Democrats onboard with us, those numbers give us a clear picture as to 
how much consensus is necessary.
  Once again, I think we can get there, and I am continually working 
with colleagues in both the House and Senate to make sure we do.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
oppose the nomination of Betsy DeVos, President Trump's choice to be 
Secretary of Education. I fundamentally disagree with my colleague from 
Texas who said earlier that this is a fight about power and who 
maintains power, whether it is going to stay in Washington or whether 
it is going to be in our State and local communities.
  In New Hampshire, we believe in local control of education. It is a 
bedrock principle of our public education system. This fight, today, is 
not about power in Washington versus power in the States; this is a 
fight about whether we are going to continue to support our public 
school system and our system of public higher education, or are we 
going to take the money out, the support out, and divert it into 
private and religious schools, and gut the public education system in 
this country?
  My parents were part of the ``greatest generation,'' and they raised 
me in post-World War II America. They understood that the best way for 
my sisters and me to have opportunities for the future was to make sure 
we had a solid education. I benefited by going to great public schools 
in the State of Missouri and in the State of Pennsylvania, and I was 
also able to receive a quality public higher education. Without the 
opportunity to attend public universities in Pennsylvania and later in 
West Virginia and in the State of Mississippi, I would not have been 
able to get a college education because my parents wouldn't have been 
able to afford to send me to a private college or university, just like 
they wouldn't have been able to afford to send me to private K-12 
schools.
  I am grateful for the public schools I attended and proud of the 
support my parents and so many other parents have given to public 
schools across America. My children and grandchildren have benefited 
from the great public schools in New Hampshire.
  As Governor, I was proud to work with the Republican legislature to 
improve the public schools in the State of New Hampshire. We expanded 
public kindergarten in our State because at the time I became Governor, 
we didn't have public kindergarten for all students. We were able to 
open the door for an additional 25,000 kids to go to public 
kindergarten. We were able to increase funding for schools in New 
Hampshire during my time as Governor. I learned during those 
experiences and also as a teacher--I taught in public schools in Dover, 
New Hampshire and also in Mississippi--the close connection between 
quality public education and a strong, growing economy.
  I taught in Mississippi in 1970. At that time, there was no 
requirement for all young people to attend school. So if you didn't 
want to go to school, you didn't have to. We saw the negative impact 
that had on economic indicators in the State of Mississippi. Since 
then, the State has adopted compulsory education for students in 
Mississippi. But it was a great lesson to me to see how important good 
schools are and how they contribute to a strong economy in this 
country.
  As Governor, when I talked to businesses in the State of New 
Hampshire, one of the things they told me that they needed in order for 
their businesses to succeed was a skilled workforce, young people who 
had a good education, who could learn advanced skills on the job. They 
looked to locate in communities where there was a strong system of 
public education.
  I value public schools as one of our Nation's bedrock civic and 
democratic institutions because they provide the best opportunity for 
kids from all walks of life to get a quality education. They pass on to 
each new generation, including the children of immigrants, America's 
shared ideals and values.
  Regrettably, after careful study of Mrs. DeVos's record as an 
activist, I have concluded that she doesn't agree with this view of our 
public schools. She has no relevant experience as a teacher or as a 
leader in public schools. She has never attended a public school, and 
she has not sent any of her children to a public school. To the 
contrary, she has spent her entire career

[[Page S704]]

and countless millions of dollars of her personal fortune working not 
to improve public schools but to privatize them, to weaken them by 
diverting public funds to private and religious schools. Given her past 
record, it makes no sense to put Mrs. DeVos in charge of the Department 
of Education unless the aim is to devalue, defund, and perhaps 
eventually destroy our public schools. I think that is unacceptable.
  In my State of New Hampshire, support for our public schools is 
bipartisan and it is passionate. In rural communities and small towns 
and our cities across the State, public schools are institutions that 
have strong support within our communities. They are a big part of our 
communities' identities and shared experiences. Across centuries and 
generations in the Granite State, public schools have been at the heart 
of our common civic life.
  I think it is not surprising that my office has been inundated with 
letters, emails, and phone calls strongly opposing the DeVos 
nomination. My office has received more than 4,000 letters and emails 
from Granite Staters. That may not seem like a lot to somebody from the 
State of California, but from the State of New Hampshire, to have 4,000 
letters and emails on a nomination is unheard of. And almost all of 
them oppose this nomination. In addition, we have received 1,405 
telephone calls in opposition and only 3 in support. I am impressed not 
only by the volume of constituent messages but by the intensity of 
their opposition.
  Megan is a social studies teacher in New Hampshire. She writes:

       Mrs. DeVos clearly lacks even a basic understanding of 
     Federal education policy, laws and instructional practices. 
     She has no relevant experience. There is just no way I would 
     ever be certified to instruct students in New Hampshire if I 
     lacked as much knowledge and experience in my field. But she 
     gets to be the nation's chief educator? How is this good for 
     kids?

  Roger is a retired public school teacher from the central part of my 
State, and he writes:

       Please reject DeVos because she is anti-public education in 
     word and in practice, lacking the understanding of the public 
     education system and having no understanding of the dreamers 
     sitting in public schools this morning, creating their own 
     American dreams, learning of the promise and justice that is 
     America.

  Sam from our Seacoast region writes:

       It is important that we maintain a strong public school 
     system. This is not a partisan issue. Any person, regardless 
     of party, can see that Miss DeVos is unqualified to fill the 
     position. You need to vote ``no'' to save our education 
     system.

  Mike from one of our university towns writes:

       I am really concerned that we might have someone with so 
     little experience in education and with seemingly anti-public 
     education views as our next education leader. I fear that a 
     DeVos confirmation will only exacerbate the already 
     segregated school experiences that children have in our 
     country. I want all students to have a fair shake at a high-
     quality school experience, not just those who live in wealthy 
     communities or who have parents savvy enough to advocate on 
     their behalf.

  Many of the letters I have received are from parents who are outraged 
by Mrs. DeVos's comments on the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, which is one of the landmark civil rights laws of the 20th 
century. In response to a question from my colleague, Senator Hassan, 
Mrs. DeVos made it clear that she was unaware that that law was a 
Federal law and that it governs all our public schools in the United 
States.
  IDEA ensures that children with disabilities have the opportunity to 
receive a free appropriate public education and that they are 
accommodated in our schools and classrooms, just like all other 
children. In her testimony, Mrs. DeVos said that decisions about how to 
treat students with disabilities should be left to the States. Can you 
imagine? What would happen in States that decide they don't want to 
make sure that those students can go to school?
  I received this message from Marilyn, who lives in the western part 
of New Hampshire. She says:

       Thank you for opposing the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as 
     Education Secretary. She is a dangerous, unqualified choice. 
     As the parent of a daughter with Down syndrome, I fear for 
     the future of IDEA if DeVos is in charge.

  Ashley Preston, who was the Teacher of the Year in New Hampshire in 
2016, wrote this to me:

       If our Secretary of Education does not understand and value 
     the importance of Federal laws such as IDEA, how can we 
     expect states and local school districts to do that? These 
     are the elements crucial to ensuring the best chance for our 
     future.

  Mr. President, the Department of Education has oversight not only of 
K-12 public schools but also higher education, including a portfolio of 
more than $1.2 trillion in Federal student loans. I have had the 
opportunity not only to teach in our K-12 schools but to work in public 
universities in New Hampshire and in private universities. Listening to 
Mrs. DeVos's testimony, I was appalled by her lack of understanding of 
higher education policy. She acknowledged that neither she nor her 
children had ever received a Federal loan or Pell grant. And this is 
the worst part: When asked to commit to enforcing rules that ensure 
students are not cheated and end up with no degree but a mountain of 
student debt--in other words, the predicament of students who went to 
Trump University and so many other for-profit colleges--she refused to 
do that. She refused to say that this is something that we should 
support as a policy in America.
  I am also deeply concerned by her support for charter schools that 
are not accountable and her reputation as ``the four-star general of 
the voucher movement.'' I believe there is a role for charter schools. 
I think as we try to improve our public system of higher education, we 
need to look at a number of models. I voted for New Hampshire's charter 
school law, but we should hold them accountable just as we hold our 
public schools accountable. We should ensure that they do not drain 
resources from public schools.
  There was a report that came out in 2013 that was done by a working 
group under the auspices of the Annenberg Institute for Social Reform. 
They uncovered similar challenges across charter schools. They found 
that there was uneven academic performance; that some of them had 
overly harsh discipline practices; that funding sometimes destabilized 
traditional schools; that there was a lack of transparency and 
oversight that led to conflicts of interest and, in some cases, fraud; 
and that many of them practiced policies that kept students out for 
various reasons.
  Mrs. DeVos was one of the architects of Michigan's first charter 
school law in 1993. It has been widely criticized for lacking 
accountability and safeguards for students. In her confirmation 
hearing, Mrs. DeVos refused to agree that for-profit charter schools 
should be held to the same standards as public schools. Just as 
disturbing is her support for school vouchers, which would siphon 
funding from public schools and divert it to private and religious 
schools.
  Advocates of vouchers like to call it school choice, but, in 
practice, parents have learned that choice is not a reality. Florida, 
under Governor Jeb Bush, was the first State to enact a statewide 
voucher system, and nearly 93 percent of private and parochial schools 
in Florida--after that law--refused to accept any voucher students.
  In New Hampshire, we have parts of the State where, if we don't have 
public schools, there are no other choices for our students. I don't 
care whether you have a voucher or not. You can't drive 3 or 4 hours to 
get to the closest private school.
  So let's be clear: Vouchers and other privatization schemes advocated 
by Mrs. DeVos are not about pedagogy; they are about ideology. They are 
all about disdain for what many voucher advocates like to call 
government schools. Well, what they call government schools are our 
public schools. They are schools that our communities have created and 
control locally for the education of their kids.
  What Mrs. DeVos fails to understand is that quality education has 
nothing do with whether a school is public or private. We have public 
schools in New Hampshire that can do better, and we have public schools 
that are world class. The same can be said about our private schools in 
New Hampshire. But what counts in public and private schools alike are 
high-quality teachers, support from parents and communities, facilities 
where kids can learn and be safe, rigorous academic standards, and the 
resources to make sure that children get the instruction they need, 
including individualized assistance for

[[Page S705]]

kids with special needs. What counts is the political and budgetary 
commitment to create high-quality schools in every neighborhood, 
regardless of ZIP Code. Because Betsy DeVos does not understand these 
basic truths about education in America, because she is driven by an 
ideological hostility to our public schools, she is the wrong person to 
serve as our Secretary of Education.
  I intend to vote no on the nomination of Mrs. DeVos, and I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in rejecting this 
unqualified nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
nomination of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. My reason is very 
simple: Mrs. DeVos lacks the experience required to oversee the 
Department of Education, an agency that serves over 50 million public 
school children across America.
  Despite spending many years giving hundreds of millions of dollars to 
back political candidates and ballot initiatives that support unproven 
education policies, she remains shockingly unfamiliar with Federal law 
and even some very basic education concepts. Educating our children is 
an incredibly important job, and we need someone who is experienced, 
prepared, and well qualified to lead the Department of Education.
  As I have said before, Mrs. DeVos has no experience in public 
education at any level, not as a teacher, not as an administrator, not 
as a student, not as a parent, not as a school board member, and not 
even as a borrower of public loans for college.
  Ask any parent; our children are what we hold most dear. It only 
makes sense that the individual whom we entrust with our children's 
education should have at least some--some--experience in public 
education. Mrs. DeVos has absolutely no experience--I repeat, no 
tangible experience--with neighborhood public schools. In fact, her 
only experience in education is her work lobbying for the transfer of 
taxpayer money to private schools.
  She has also pushed for the rapid expansion of charter schools 
without sufficient accountability to parents and to students, which 
brings me to her track record in my home State of Michigan. Mrs. DeVos 
has pushed for school vouchers to send our public tax dollars to 
private schools. Her staunch advocacy for the use of taxpayer funding 
for private and charter school systems earned her the nickname as the 
``four-star general of the pro-voucher movement.''
  The vast majority of children in Michigan and in the United States 
attend neighborhood public schools. Voucher programs rob these children 
of the resources they need to receive high-quality education near where 
they live. Michigan voters soundly rejected her plan, and we cannot--I 
repeat, we cannot--put her in a position to push for voucher programs 
on a national scale that will weaken our neighborhood schools and will 
weaken, in particular, our rural schools.
  Let me be clear: I support innovative models for improving our 
education system but only when those models are proven to work. For 
example, I worked hard to ensure that all children have access to the 
skills and education that are vital to joining the modern workforce and 
competing in today's global economy. I introduced legislation that will 
reduce the price tag for higher learning by allowing students to 
complete college-level courses while they are still in public high 
school.
  The Making Education Affordable and Accessible Act will help students 
save time and money as they kick-start their careers through a very 
personalized curriculum. Whether an early-middle college program or a 
dual and concurrent enrollment program, these models help traditional 
public school students save money and get ahead by earning college 
credits while they finish their high school education.
  These programs are typically run by a local school district or an 
intermediate school district and are offered at little or no cost to 
the student. They also help students identify their major or interest 
area sooner so that they can complete their college degree and graduate 
as much as 1 year earlier. Across the State of Michigan, students are 
participating in more than 90 early and middle college programs, 
programs that are proven to significantly increase high school 
graduation rates.
  Jobs for the Future found that, nationally, 90 percent of early 
college students graduate high school versus 78 percent nationally. 
This is just one example of the kind of innovative approach with proven 
results that policymakers should support to improve education outcomes.
  Education reform must be driven by data and validated outcomes and 
not by political ideology. Our primary focus must always be on 
increasing opportunities for the millions of students in our 
neighborhood public schools. Given Mrs. DeVos's history of supporting 
policies that undermine traditional public schools and the communities 
they serve, I do not think she would act in the best interests of 
American students.
  Michigan has been devoted to great public education for generations, 
a commitment that stretches back to even before the founding of our 
State. Some of our State's earliest pioneers, including my ancestors, 
settled under the guidance of the Northwest Ordinance, which stated 
that ``schools and the means of education shall forever be 
encouraged.'' Our Nation has strived to live up to this creed ever 
since, honoring the fundamental truth that all of our children have the 
right to an education no matter who they are, where they live, how much 
money their parents have, or how they learn.
  All levels of government--State, local and Federal--share the 
responsibility of ensuring that our children have access to quality 
education. In addition to providing significant Federal dollars to 
local school districts, the Federal Government plays a critical role in 
preventing discrimination and creating opportunity.
  Federal education laws play a vital roll in ensuring that all 
students have equal access to learning opportunities, laws like the 
landmark 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
  Before the enactment of IDEA, too many of our children with 
disabilities were denied the chance to learn from our broader 
communities. Likewise, our broader communities were denied the chance 
to learn from these youth and the extraordinary perspectives and 
contributions they offer to American society.
  Now, thanks to IDEA, 6.5 million of our children, or 13 percent of 
all public school students, are not condemned to a life of isolation or 
mere accommodation. Instead, Federal law ensures that every child has 
access to the resources he or she needs to become productive and 
included members of our increasingly diverse 21st-century society.
  IDEA assists public schools with offering high-quality special 
education and early intervention services for children with 
disabilities from birth to age 21. As a result, IDEA is responsible for 
millions of youth with disabilities graduating from high school, 
enrolling in college, and finding jobs as valuable participants in the 
American economy.
  But IDEA will not enforce itself; it is the responsibility of the 
Department of Education and its leadership to monitor, evaluate, and 
provide technical assistance to States, making sure that our schools 
are offering learning opportunities that meet every student's needs.
  It is the responsibility of the Senate to determine whether Mrs. 
DeVos can carry out this task and live up to the creed of ``forever 
encouraging'' education. Unfortunately, Mrs. DeVos has demonstrated 
little comprehension of the Federal role in protecting students with 
disabilities' equal right to an education. This became evident when she 
was asked directly about IDEA during her confirmation hearing, and Mrs. 
DeVos tried to excuse her erroneous answer by saying, ``I may have 
confused it.'' Every student knows the importance of doing their 
homework, studying for their exams, and practicing for any class 
presentations in advance. Every educator knows that the answer ``I may 
have confused it'' is not a response that leads to a passing grade.
  With the stakes as high as they are, it is clear that Mrs. DeVos did 
not do her homework. She did not study for her potential role. She did 
not practice for her interview with the Senate committee and, most 
importantly, the

[[Page S706]]

American people. She has contributed millions of dollars to Republican 
politicians over the years and probably thought that was the only 
qualification that she needed. We need to prove to the American people 
that she is wrong.
  I take my responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to provide 
advise and consent to the President very seriously, and I know my 
colleagues here in the Senate do so as well. Given Mrs. DeVos's weak 
performance in her interview before the American people and her 
inability to demonstrate a basic understanding of key education 
concepts, I do not think we can give her a passing grade.
  As Senators, we do not operate under a model of social promotion 
under which we pass an unqualified individual to a higher office simply 
because they showed up. Perhaps this is why Mrs. DeVos's nomination is 
expected to see the most bipartisan opposition to her confirmation of 
all of the President's nominations to date.
  Mrs. DeVos's response regarding IDEA during her confirmation hearing 
was not the only response that I found alarming. As the father of two 
college-age daughters, I am extremely concerned about ensuring that our 
college campuses provide safe environments where students can learn and 
grow.
  I was shocked by a recent comprehensive report done by one school 
that found that over 20 percent of female undergraduates experienced 
unwanted sexual contact. Sadly, this problem is not confined to one 
school. It is a public safety and health crisis that we must 
immediately take action to address.
  The Department of Education has taken important first steps to combat 
the prevalence of campus sexual assault by opening investigations in 
over 200 schools and publishing guidance to ensure that universities 
are affording students title IX protections, the freedom from 
discrimination on the basis of sex and freedom from sexual violence.
  Mrs. DeVos apparently has a different reaction to the threats many 
young students face while pursuing their higher education. As we saw 
during her confirmation hearing, she said it is ``premature'' for her 
to say if she will choose to uphold the Department of Education's 
guidance on preventing sexual violence. This is completely unacceptable 
to me as a Senator representing over 500,000 undergraduate students 
attending one of Michigan's outstanding colleges and universities, and 
this is completely unacceptable to me as a father.
  It is also unacceptable in the eyes of over 1,000 graduates of the 
same school in Michigan that Mrs. DeVos attended herself: Calvin 
College. Calvin College alumni from the class of 1947 to the class of 
2020 sent my office an extensive petition expressing their deep concern 
with Mrs. DeVos's nomination. In their letter, these alumni presented 
several reasons they oppose Mrs. DeVos's confirmation. Specifically, 
they expressed concerns that she does not understand or support the 
many Federal policies--like IDEA and title IX--that she would be 
required to enforce. They wrote: ``This is especially concerning given 
that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and title IX, 
which ensure that all students' educational experiences are free of 
discrimination that impede learning, are not of value to Mrs. DeVos.'' 
I cannot agree more with her fellow alumni.
  My office has received over 8,000 calls in opposition to the 
nomination of Betsy DeVos, and I am sure my colleagues have also heard 
from thousands of their own constituents all across this country. The 
American people are making their voices heard, and they are telling the 
Senate that Mrs. DeVos is not the right choice to lead the Department 
of Education. I urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents who 
are forcefully--forcefully--rejecting Mrs. DeVos's misguided vision for 
neighborhood public schools in America.
  I will be standing with the people of Michigan, and I once again call 
on my colleagues to join the bipartisan opposition to Mrs. DeVos's 
nomination. Our children's future depends on it, and for their sake, 
please vote no.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe Betsy DeVos is going to be an 
excellent Secretary of Education.