[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 171 (Tuesday, October 29, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6236-S6237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCHOOL SAFETY
Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, Nelson Mandela once said: ``Education is
the best weapon with which to change the world.''
Today, this morning, 51 million students woke up and went to a public
school in the United States. Each student carried a spark with which to
light up the world in their futures. Unfortunately, today, given the
realities that we have seen over the last few years, some of these
students are at risk.
Last week was designated as America's Safe Schools Week. It was meant
as a time to reflect on the steps we are taking to protect our children
every day. Upon reflection, however, one thing has become very clear:
In many cases, considering the current realities, our public schools
have not been designed physically to deal with the student safety
issue.
The consequences of this are heartbreaking. We have heard this story
too many times: Parkland, FL, 17 lives; Newtown, CT, 27 lives;
Columbine, CO, 13 lives. These were some of the darkest days in our
country's history. None of us will ever forget the terror, the tears,
and the devastation that these and other communities have felt. For the
parents and the relatives of those affected, it is a nightmare from
which many will never wake up.
This can't be allowed to continue. There is an implicit agreement
that when we drop our children off at a school, we know they are going
to be kept safe. In many cases today, we are not fulfilling that
agreement. There are a lot of steps we must take in order to face this
crisis. I am confident that if we come together in a bipartisan fashion
and focus on doing what actually works, we can make our schools safer.
The U.S. Senate has a chance to get this started right now. Last
month, in a bipartisan effort, Senators Doug Jones, Thom Tillis, and
Shelley Moore Capito joined me in sponsoring the School Safety
Clearinghouse Act. This bipartisan bill is a critical first step that
will help to protect students and faculty in our public schools in
America.
The School Safety Clearinghouse Act will codify a recommendation from
President Trump's Federal Commission on School Safety to create a
Federal clearinghouse containing all of the best practices for
designing safer schools. The techniques contained in the school safety
clearinghouse will come from the brightest engineers, architects,
researchers, and educators in the country. It will be like a library
that schools can trust when making critical decisions and when talking
about physical upgrades in their environment. It is imperative that
schools have the best design information because design flaws in school
buildings are placing our students and faculty at risk every day.
When drafting this bill, our office met with Max Schachter, whose
son, Alex, was tragically killed in the Stoneman Douglas High School
massacre in Parkland, FL, not that long ago. On that awful day, the
murderer fired through the window in Alex's classroom door and murdered
Alex and two of his classmates. Senselessness. Had the glass been
stronger or had the window been designed with an obstructed view, Alex
might be alive today.
Madam President, fixing design flaws like these are simple matters
that we need to take a step toward today to make our schools safer.
Most schools understand this, and they are doing everything they can to
close the security lapse.
In August, I saw this firsthand when I toured Mashburn Elementary
School in Forsyth County--with Georgia's First Lady Marty Kemp--which
has taken incredible steps with grants from the State, that the
Governor made available, to enhance their safety measures.
Using this grant money made available by Governor Brian Kemp,
Mashburn has restructured all their entryways, reinforced the doors to
every classroom, and launched new emergency readiness protocols. As a
result, Mashburn is better able to prevent tragedy from occurring.
And the best thing, it has in recent years actually developed a very
close relationship with the local police force and sheriff's
department. At Mashburn, they have a sheriff's deputy in school every
day.
Every school in the country wants to upgrade their safety. The
problem is that many schools don't simply have the information they
need to make the best choices. The School Safety Clearinghouse Act will
close this information gap once and for all.
This is not a top-down government program by the way. The School
Safety Clearinghouse Act will never have an unfunded mandate or make
any recommendations or force any school to take any action it doesn't
want. Rather, the School Safety Clearinghouse Act will empower them to
make the decisions for themselves.
Here in America, it doesn't matter if you have big dreams or humble
ones; this is the land of opportunity. Everyone has the right to pursue
their own happiness. A good education, as we know, is the best way to
start that.
I learned that from my parents, both of whom were public school
teachers. I see it happening today through my three grandkids. In this
country, we promise all of our kids a good education. We now need to
promise a safe education as well.
The School Safety Clearinghouse Act is a step that we can take right
now, right here in this body, to fulfill that responsibility. We have
no time to waste. Every day, students across the country attend schools
to learn, grow up, and build their lives. The longer we wait to secure
our schools, the higher the chance that some of those students will not
come home.
This is not all we need to do; this is just a first start, Madam
President. If this bill helps to make one school safer or saves one
life, it will be worth it. Let's get it done. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President was presiding before and I heard several
speeches by my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle speaking
about the 1332 waiver process that the Trump administration is using to
lower insurance premiums, and the kind of common refrain is: This is a
terrible thing. We are eroding protections in the Affordable Care Act,
and we should preserve the Affordable Care Act as it is. This is so
ironic because the people who want to get rid of Obamacare right now
are running for President on the Democratic side of the ticket.
If you ask Bernie Sanders if he wants to get replace Obamacare, he
raises his hand. If you ask Elizabeth Warren if she wants to replace
Obamacare and force people to give up their employer-provided
insurance, she raises her hand.
Now, why do the Presidential candidates--Democratic Presidential
candidates sit there and say: Hey, let's get rid of Obamacare? And when
the administration does something to lower premiums, my Democratic
colleagues stand up and decry this kind of assault upon whatever value
they are speaking to.
What I think is the Democratic candidates running for President are
so aware that healthcare costs under Obama have skyrocketed. Let me see
if I can find my figures here, but it's quite remarkable.
Let's just speak a little bit about what has happened. Since 2013,
the deductible for someone with single coverage has increased by 53
percent. And despite deductibles going up, say, $10,000, premiums have
increased 20 percent. So the patient's out-of-pocket exposure is
increasing both in the deductible and with their premium. For a family
of four in Louisiana--we looked on healthcare.gov just walking here--
$25,000 for the policy with an over $10,000 deductible.
Now, this is not affordable. So clearly there is a concern about
affordability. That is what the Trump administration has been trying to
address. And frankly, that is what Bernie
[[Page S6237]]
Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wish to have Americans sacrifice their
employer-sponsored insurance to address.
But my Democratic Senate colleagues don't want to do this. They would
rather have all the protections of Obamacare, even if you cannot afford
the policy. And truly, that is what we are doing now. And now, we get
to speaking about the waivers that the Trump administration is giving,
somehow they are saying these are terrible things.
Let me point out that, in the seven States with 1332 waivers granted
under the Trump administration, health insurance premiums have
decreased by 7.5 percent. Some States have had a double-digit
reduction. Maryland, for example--and I will come back to Maryland--has
had a 30-percent reduction in their health insurance premiums under the
1332 waiver given by the Trump administration. North Dakota had a 20-
percent reduction.
And what about if you didn't get a waiver? In my State, which didn't
apply for a waiver, premiums are expected to rise 10 percent this
coming year--10 percent. So the family of four paying $25,000 a year
with a $10,000 deductible will pay $27,500 next year, with a $12,500
deductible, meaning they will be out almost $40,000--$40,000 for their
health insurance.
I suspect there is a lot of families in my State that wouldn't have
minded if we applied for a waiver if we could just lower premiums,
instead of seeing out-of-pocket expense continue to rise.
Now, there is a little bit of an irony here. Maryland has a
legislature dominated by Democrats, and they actually got a 1332
waiver. So my Democratic colleagues who are speaking about how terrible
these waivers are, they should look back to States which Democrats
control who are applying for these waivers.
I am told that Montana has a waiver, Montana with a Democratic
Governor who is running for President on the Democratic side of the
ticket. Apparently, that person felt it was something that he would
sign into law and otherwise approve because it would be beneficial to
the people in the State.
I don't know why, in the Senate, my Democratic Senate colleagues want
Americans to pay more for insurance. Why do they insist on continuing
to advocate for policies which make healthcare, health insurance, so
unaffordable?
This is personal for me. Besides being an American wanting all to
have coverage, for 25 years, I worked in a hospital for the working
poor, for the uninsured, trying to bring healthcare to those who could
not otherwise afford it. It has been my life mission, if you will, as a
physician, to try and get healthcare to those who cannot have it.
And so when folks want to give them this great policy, but you can't
afford it, but don't worry, it is a great policy if you can afford it,
I have to smile. Like the Greek myth Tantalus--where we get the word
``tantalize'' from--where the prize is always just beyond the reach,
just beyond the reach, always there to tempt, but you can never have.
So you have a family making $120,000 a year having to pay $25,000 for
insurance, with a $10,000 deductible. They are sacrificing so many
things. It is tantalizing, but we are sure this is a better state of
affairs.
Now, what the administration has done, they have given States
flexibility to craft affordable options for families that do not have
subsidies. It respects the fact that some States are different than
other States. Imagine that.
Alaska is different than Rhode Island--Alaska, if you laid it across
a map of the lower 48, would stretch from Georgia to California, but
has fewer people than Rhode Island, and Rhode Island, which is a
postage stamp compared to Alaska. Those States are different, so allow
them to have different healthcare systems.
By the way, when we do this, we are assured by the administration
that they continue to enforce protections for those with preexisting
conditions and all other things that we as Americans, that we as
Republicans, that I as a physician who have spent my life caring for
the uninsured, value--so that, if healthcare is not affordable, it is
not available. And what we have seen by the folks on the left who are
concerned about healthcare costs is a doubling down on government
control.
They want to go for Medicare for All. They want to take away your
employer-sponsored insurance. But at least they acknowledge that cost
is a problem. What my Senate colleagues are not doing, the ones who are
speaking today, is acknowledging that cost is a problem, and you can
have the greatest plan in the world and, if it is unaffordable, then
that greatness is ironic. It is on a piece of paper, but it is not real
in someone's life.
What we have seen is that States, when they come to the Federal
Government requesting permission to put in a program which is specific
to the circumstances in their State, they are not only covering the
citizens in their State, continuing to have protections for those with
preexisting conditions, but they are also lowering premiums by as much
as 30 percent. And that is a good thing, and I have no clue why my
Democratic colleagues do not want to see premiums lowered by 30
percent.
Madam President, thank you, and I yield the floor.
(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
____________________