[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.