Mediaboss Marketing

Republican lawmakers are frustrated with mounting dissent from civil servants over President Trump's policies.

Amidunusually public tension between federal employees and the new administration including Trumps firing of the acting attorney general, State Department dissent and frequent leaks to the media some of Trump's allies in Congress want federal employees to either do their jobs or get out.

When someone works full time for the government, it should be no surprise to them that they serve at the pleasure of the [president], Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), chairman of the powerful Rules Committee, told The Hill.

Im not interested in politics by an agency employee.

But others in the GOP are looking to tamp down the tension and go back to business as usual.

I know this was a hotly contested election and we do not all feel the same way about the outcome. Each of us is entitled to the expression of our political beliefs, but we cannot let our personal convictions overwhelm our ability to work as one team, he said.

Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) told The Hill that things will ultimately calm down once the new administration gets settled in.

Im an optimistic person, any time you see a big change, folks are going to react to it when their livelihoods are at stake, she said.

Its going to be a long, bumpy ride, and eventually everything will shake out.

Trump came into office having made few friends among the career employees who staff government agencies in Washington.

His drain the swamp mantra and immediate freeze on federal hiring was undoubtedly a tough sell among those who count on the bureaucracy for their livelihoods. Voters in the District of Columbia responded by delivering Democrat Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonTrump was right: Media is the 'opposition party' 'South Park' creators say they'll 'back off' Trump Republicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants MORE an 89-point victory over Trump, and she won handily in nearby Maryland and Virginia districts, too.

But the expected clash between Trump and the civil service reached a new level late last week, when Trump signed an executive order freezing the refugee program and banning citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States.

The secrecy involved in the orders production, prompted in part by a White House staff worried about media leaks, created confusion in federal agencies trying to implement the order. And on Monday, Trump fired acting attorney general Sally Yates, an Obama administration holdover,after she refused to defend his executive order in court.

Along with the pink slip, the White House said Yates had "betrayed" the government in a statement.

That same day, White House press secretary Sean Spicer dismissed an internal State Department dissent document that pushes back against Trumps immigration executive order.Nearly 1,000 diplomats reportedly signed the memo.

They should either get with the program or they can go, Spicer said. He followed upon Wednesdayby explaining that while all Americans have a right to speak their mind, its their job to help the president enact his agenda.

Democratic Rep. Gerry ConnollyGerry ConnollyRepublicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants Lawmakers join women's marches in DC and nationwide GOP, Dems hear different things from Trump MORE, whose Northern Virginia district includes a significant number of civil servants, told The Hill that concerned federal employees are reaching out to his office.

Dozens of social media accounts purporting to belong to spurned agency staffers have popped up to muddy the administrations message.The unverified accounts appeared after Trump administration clamped down on multiple agencies social media activity in response to the National Park Service retweeting a photo comparison showing that Trumps inaugural crowd was smaller than former President Obamas.

This week, a Washington Post reportdescribeda civil servant support group in Washington, noting that 180 employees are expected to attend a workshop where experts will offer advice on workers rights and how they can express civil disobedience.

For all the talk about civil servants and their consciences, though, Rep. Bill FloresBill FloresRepublicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants Republicans who oppose, support Trump refugee order Overnight Tech: Trump meets Alibaba founder | Uber to make some data public | GOP Lawmakers tapped for key tech panels MORE (R-Texas) thinks the issue is simple.

I dont think its rocket science. All they have to do is do their job, Flores said.

If they dont want to do their jobs, they should get another job.

GOP lawmakers say that civil service dissent isntabout free speech.

We should have more debate in this country. Now thats a different thing than if you have a job to serve the president in the executive branch and advance his responsibilities, which are to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.),a frequent Trump critic during the campaign, told The Hill.

We need toreinin these independent agencies and make them accountable to the president again, regardless of who the president is.

Some Republicans floated questions about whether dissenting employees could be violating the federal Hatch Actby using their official positions for political action. But while there were sporadic calls for punishment, most lawmakers wouldnt speculate as to what the best form of recourse should be.

To express political overtones by a government employee I would think violates the Hatch Act, and I would think that anyone who has begun this process should go through a procedure consistent with a violation of the Hatch Act, Sessions,the Texas lawmaker,said.

It concerns me, and I think it should be looked at and adjudicated as necessary to the rules of the department.

Democratic lawmakers that spoke to The Hill were united around the dissenting civil servants, framing their opposition to Trumps policies as protected speechthats about less about politics and more about protecting the missions of federal agencies.

People in civil service are committed to what they believe the mission of their agency isthey have a conscience and they have the ability to speak up, said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), a longtime member of Democratic leadership.

We have free speech in this national and they are, from the depths of their own conscience, talking about what they thing is the right thing.

When asked by The Hill what she thought of Republican worries that dissent could set a dangerous precedent for employees looking to frustrate a presidents agenda, DeLauro responded, Generally, this White House worries me.

Read more:
Republicans impatient with anti-Trump civil servants - The Hill

Republicans trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act have a new problem on their hands: The AARP isnt happy.

The nations most famous retiree organization, which represents 38 million older Americans, has fired off letters critical of two proposals that have figured prominently in GOP discussions about replacing the Affordable Care Act. One of those proposals would relax the laws age bands. The other would transform Medicaid into a so-called block grant.

And its not just letters the AARP is sending. A spokesperson for the organization confirmed that it is asking its members to call lawmakers who sit on the health subcommittee for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which took up these ideas in a hearing Thursday.

The AARPs objections alone arent enough to stop Republicans from including versions of these ideas in health care legislation, of course. But the organization represents a demographic that happens to be an essential part of the Republican voting coalition.

Taken together, the groups warnings constitute one more reminder of the difficult policy trade-offs, and equally difficult politics, that Republicans are sure to confront as their effort to repeal Obamacare moves forward.

The creation of age bands was among the more important changes that the Affordable Care Act introduced for insurers selling directly to individuals. Previously, insurers in most states could adjust premiums based on the expected medical needs of new customers which meant, inevitably, charging older customers a lot more than younger ones.

The Affordable Care Act put a stop to that, by stipulating that insurers could charge their oldest customers no more than three times what they charge their youngest ones. This requirement is a big reason why many younger people pay more for insurance now than they did before the health care law came along.

Republicans love to talk about how relaxing or eliminating the age bands would mean lower premiums for younger people. And thats true, even if the benefits for young consumers would beless dramatic than Republicans sometimes suggest.

What Republicans dont mention is that, as a consequence, premiums for older people would go back up again. And in Wednesdays letter, the AARP warned that such a change could hurt people just as theyre getting to the age when medical problems become more common. Such a change, the group warned, would severely limit, not expand, access to quality, affordable healthcare.

As for Medicaid, Republicans have been talking about converting it into a block grant since long before Obamacare. The idea is to give states much more control over the program and, more importantly, to reduce the programs funding perhaps by a dramatic amount. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the most recent budget from House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would mean 33 percent less spending within the decade.

Republicans boast about these savings for the federal Treasury, along with the control it would give governors who bristle under Washingtons oversight. But with less money to spend, states wouldnt be able to finance as many benefits for as many people.

Theyd have to make cuts of their own some of which would almost surely fall on older people, particularly since the majority of spending in Medicaid goes to elderly and disabled people who use it to supplement Medicare. Among other things, Medicaid is the nations largest payer of nursing home care.

Predictably, the AARP has noticed this too.

Disabling conditions that affect older adults include Alzheimers disease, stroke, and chronic and disabling heart conditions, the organization said in its letter. Individuals may have low incomes, high costs, or already spent through their resources paying out-of-pocket for [long-term care], and need these critical services. For these individuals, Medicaid is a program of last resort.

The AARP has a broad policy agenda, including two other items protecting Medicare and Social Security from cuts that are generally higher institutional priorities. But changes to the health care law and Medicaid are bound to affect millions of its members negatively. The AARP isnt going to stay quiet about that. Its safe to assume the group will also be reminding Republicans that older Americans voted for President Donald Trump and GOP candidates by large margins.

And its not like the AARP is the only group that is going to take a very active interest in what happens to the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans talk a lot about financing their schemes with changes to the tax treatment of employer health insurance. Thats bound to raise screams from both businesses and unions (just like a similar provision of the Affordable Care Act has).

Most Republican ideas for replacing the law involve some combination of fewer people insured and weaker coverage for those who have insurance. That doesnt sit well with hospitals, which end up taking losses when people who need care cant pay for it.

And then there are the proposed changes to Medicaid, which would be sure to alienate not just the AARP but a whole bunch of other constituencies, not least among them Republican governors who presided over expansion in their states.

Republicans can negotiate with these potential critics to win their consent, or at least mute their concerns. But trade-offs in health policy are inevitable, and every accommodation that Republicans offer to a group like the AARP, employers, hospitals or GOP governors will show up as a cost for somebody else.

Meanwhile, the negotiations themselves are bound to take time and effort, and create plenty of embarrassing news stories again, just as they did for Democrats in 2009 and 2010, when President Barack Obama and his allies were crafting the legislation Republicans now seek to erase.

Democrats were willing to endure that bad publicity and, more broadly, to stick with a politically difficult process, even as it dragged out for over a year because making health care available to everybody had been one of the partys most important priorities for something like three-quarters of a century.

Recent news suggests Republicans can expect a similarly difficult experience if they proceed. Already, lawmakers are getting flooded with calls and hearing from protesters worried about losing insurance. And if the polls are correct, the public suddenly feels more favorably about the ACA than it did before perhaps because the prospect of losing the program is making people think about the parts they like.

At last weeks party retreat in Philadelphia, during a private meeting recorded and leaked to the press, Republican lawmakers talked openly of their inability to deliver promises of better care at lower costs. Over the weekend, Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) practically begged his supporters to start speaking out, because town halls have gotten so difficult.

And on Tuesday, in an interview with Vox, Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) admitted that rolling back the Medicaid expansion is going to be a little harder than I thought because so many people, in so many states, have come to depend on the program.

Republicans still have the votes in Congress to pass repeal legislation, and in Trump they have a president who would sign that bill into law. Having invested so much time in the cause, having made such concrete promises to their voters and the many people unhappy with how Obamacare has worked for them, GOP leaders would find it difficult to walk away.

But seeing repeal through the legislative process would require an enormous investment of political capital and time leaving less of each for tax reform, spending bills and other priorities. And thats to say nothing of how people would feel about a world in which the Affordable Care Act were gone to be replaced, maybe, with a system in which people face even greater exposure to medical bills.

Thats a high political price to pay. Republicans will have to decide if its worth it.

This story has been updated with further details about the AARPs outreach efforts.

Want more updates on policy & politics from Jonathan Cohn? Sign up for his newsletter, Citizen Cohn, here.

Continued here:
Another Warning Sign For Republicans Trying To Repeal Obamacare - Huffington Post

On the same day Congress confirmed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, it took a step towardreversing a law hed fought against as the head of oil giant Exxon Mobil.

The Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday to overturn a regulation that was part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law andrequired oil, gas and mining companies to disclose their payments to foreign governments. If the Senate follows the Houses lead, it could send a stark signal to the rest of the world that rooting out corruption is no longer a U.S. government priority, critics say.

Related: Senate confirms Rex Tillerson as Donald Trumps secretary of state

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

The oil and gas industry has long fought against the provisionyet to go into effectto increase transparency in the oil and gas sector, a proposal that had bipartisan support when it was folded into the Dodd-Frank law. The aim wasto shine a light on an industry that has long been accused of fuelingcorruption in the developing world by paying autocratic leaders and corrupt cabinet ministers for energy and mining contractswhile local citizens remain mired in poverty.

Its very clear that the transparency with regards to those receipts has simply been lacking,explains former Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican sponsor of the original provision.

Since the United States first passed the law, numerous others have followed suit, including the European Union, Norway, Hong Kong and Canada, home to many of the worlds largest energy and mining companies. While the U.S. has dragged its feet in implementing the regulation, dozens of other governments now enforce these disclosure requirements.

Thats mooted one of the primary arguments the energy industry has made against the measurethat it puts American oil and gas companies at a disadvantage compared withtheir competitors in other countries. First, the U.S. law is not limited to American companies, since it applies to anyone that files an annual report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including those that list on the New York Stock Exchange. Chinas state-controlled CNOOC Limited, for example, lists on the NYSEas well as the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, which has similar disclosure requirements.

In addition, the EUs adoption of new disclosure standardsmeans companies listing on the London Stock Exchangeincluding Russian state-run outfits like Rosneft and Lukoilare already disclosing their foreign payments, Lugar points out. If anything, says UCLA political science professor Michael Ross, companies like Exxon and Chevron will actually gain an advantage over most of their largest competitors if Congress overturns the law.

And the timing, nearly simultaneouswith Tillersons swearing-in as secretary ofstate, is sure to raise eyebrows abroad. Its well-known that Americas two most powerful oil companies have opposed the measure. So has the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas sectors main lobbying arm, which in 2012 filed a lawsuit challenging the provision. Aformer Lugar aide, who helped the senator write the measure,tells Newsweek that Tillerson personally came to the Indiana Republicans office to lobbyLugar against the provision. Among other things, he said it would harm Exxons relations with Russia, the aide writes in an email. (An Exxon spokesman did not reply to a request for comment about its position on the measure.)

Should Congress move forward with the repeal, bucking international standards in the name of American oil and gas primacy, I guarantee its going to undermine [Tillersons] credibility with our allies, says Isabel Munilla, senior policy adviser for Oxfam America, a leading supporter of the law.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, prime minister at the time of this picture, with Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson at a signing ceremony in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, August 30, 2011. Alexsey Druginyn/RIA Novosti/Pool/Reuters

At the State Department, Tillerson will now be overseeing global anti-corruption efforts, including in some of the countries where Exxon has contracts. In 2016, then-Secretary of State John Kerry launched a $70 million Integrity Initiative to support local reformers, police, prosecutors, detectives, judges and journalists overseas in the fight against corruption. Yet Ross worries that Congresss repeal of the disclosure rule will send the exact opposite message to the dictators of oil-rich countries seeking to cultivate personal ties with the new Trump administration.

It doesnt take a genius to see giving a contract to Exxon is going to buy you access tothe White House and the State Department, says Ross, who studies resource-rich countries and is on the federal advisory board of the multinational Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. This has to be giving Exxon an edge, again, in countries precisely where the process of awarding concessions and awarding contracts is not done solely on merit.

Even with energy sector disclosures now required inmore than 30 countries around the globe, Republican opponents continue to repeat the claim that the law will single out American companies. This is an imposition on the oil and gas industry that their competitors in China and elsewhere dont have to do, insistsJames Inhofe, who has introduced the companion measure to the House-passed resolution.

Inhofecomplained that hundreds of millions of dollars in implementation costs would have to be borne by our companies and not by foreign companies. When it was pointed out that those same implementation costs would apply to any companies that file with the SEC, not just American companies, the Oklahoma Republican replied,No, this would be on anyone negotiating an energy plan in competition.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has reiterated similar claims, and a spokesman explained via email that he was referring to the fact that U.S. companies will have to report proportional share of government payments even if the U.S. company is not the operator of a specific project, something foreign competitors do not have to adhere to. But Ross disputes that, saying the EU requirements are actually stricter in several ways.

Inhofe is hopeful the Senate will move quickly to vote on his repeal resolution, after the House easily passed the measure with near-unanimous Republican support. Thanks to a law known as the Congressional Review Act, Congress can overturn any regulations issued under President Barack Obama since June of last year by a simplemajority vote. The Oklahoma senator tells Newsweek he gave a presentation to his colleagues on the issue at the Senate Republicans conference lunch on Tuesday, and there was no opposition.

In remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday evening,Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised to hold a vote on the repeal resolution soon.But not every Republican is sold on the ideaGeorgia Senator Johnny Isakson says hes still weighing the complex issue and has yet to make a decision. Two other GOP senators would also have to defect to blockthe repeal effort.

If that doesnt happen, the American energy industry can chalk up another political victory in the early days of theTrump administration. Already, its allies have been installed at the State and Energy departments, and one is likely to lead the Environmental Protection Agencyas well. Trump has given the green light to two controversial energy pipeline projects, andon Wednesday eveningthe Senate moved forward with a measure to repeal an Obama environmental regulationtargeting the coal industry. Clearly, energy interests have new heft in Republican-controlled Washington.

It is striking to me how important [Republicans] consider it, Ross says of the transparency requirements. There are thousands of Obama regulations that could be targeted, and this is somehow at the top of the list, along with a handful of others. Congress is trying to zoom this through.

The rest is here:
Republicans Make It Easier to Keep Big Oil Payments to Foreign Governments a Secret - Newsweek

By Kelsey Snell, and David Weigel, and Ed O'Keefe By Kelsey Snell, and David Weigel, and Ed O'Keefe February 1 at 4:47 PM

Senate Republicans moved aggressively Wednesday to push through several of Trumps Cabinet nominees, the latest round in an escalating showdown with Democrats trying to thwart President Trumps administration.

Republicans lashed out angrily at Democrats trying to stall the presidents nominees at the committee level, suspending the rules to approve two nominees, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) for secretary of health and human services and Steven T. Mnuchin to lead the Treasury.

Republicans also advanced the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) for attorney general, and they finalized confirmation of former ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson for secretary of state by a vote of 56 to 43.

The day was not without its setbacks for Republicans, however. Two GOP senators, Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine), signaled they do not plan to support the presidents nominee for education secretary, Betsy DeVos leaving Republicans one vote shy of the number needed to doom her nomination. Both senators cited their uncertainty about whether DeVos, an avid supporter of charter schools and school vouchers, is sufficiently committed to helping public schools.

The drama on Capitol Hill unfolded at a time when Democrats, under intense pressure from liberal activists, have become increasingly emboldened to block Trumps agenda and appointees.

Democrats were enraged by the administrations executive order issued over the weekend to bar travel to the United States by those from seven majority-Muslim countries. They galvanized around the firing of acting attorney general Sally Yates, who was dismissed for refusing to enforce the ban. And some Democrats were also angered by the presidents nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on Tuesday night, arguing that Republicans cannot expect them to swiftly approve the selection after their blockade of then-President Barack Obamas nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.

[Two GOP senators announce opposition to DeVos]

Several Democrats sided with Republicans, however, to approve Tillerson, including senators from states that Trump won during the election: Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.). Maine Sen. Angus King (I) and Sen. Mark R. Warner (Va.) also supported Tillerson.

There is little Democrats can do to prevent final confirmation of any of Trumps picks because the GOP needs only 51 votes to approve them in the full Senate and there are 52 Republican senators.

With Tillerson, six high-ranking Trump nominees have been approved by the full Senate: Elaine Chao as transportation secretary; retired generals John Kelly and Jim Mattis at the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon; Mike Pompeo to lead the CIA; and Nikki Haley to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Over in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republicans celebrated Sessionss approval on a party-line vote of 11 to 9, with Democrats present and opposing his nomination.

Senator Sessions has devoted his life to public service, and his qualifications cannot be questioned, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said in a statement following the Sessions vote. He has a history of protecting and defending the Constitution and the rule of law for all people.

But a committee hearing to approve Trumps pick for the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, was delayed after Democrats failed to show up. So was a hearing to vet Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) to lead the Office of Management and Budget was delayed Wednesday, though the delay happened before the panel convened.

And on Tuesday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the nominations of former Texas governor Rick Perry to be energy secretary and Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) to be interior secretary.

Republicans came to the aid of Trumps nominees after Democrats dipped into their procedural arsenal to stall many of them at committee hearings on Monday, echoing growing liberal anger in the streets.

Democrats are going to keep fighting back, said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). We are going to stand with people across the country. And we will keep pushing Republicans to put country above party and stand with us.

That stance was met with praise from liberal activists, labor unions and constituents.

Were seeing someone who came into office with a historic popular vote loss come in and push a radical, unconstitutional agenda, said Kurt Walters, the campaign director of the transparency group Demand Progress. Yes, radical and bold tactics are what senators should be using in response.

At Senate Finance on Wednesday morning, Chair Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) rammed through Mnuchin and Price after Democrats did not show up for that hearing. Their nominations now head to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote, although it is unclear when that will occur.

Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference, Hatch charged.

Incensed by the Democratic boycott, GOP members spent Tuesday exploring how they could quickly approve Price and Mnuchin and punish Democrats for their surprise move.

Committee staffers scoured the panels lengthy rulebook and discovered it permits the majority party to temporarily suspend the rules and meet without Democrats. Hatch said he consulted the Senate parliamentarian, who serves as a referee on all disputes in committees and on the Senate floor, who said doing so was within bounds.

After weeks of back-and-forth about Trumps nominees, the boycott was the last straw, explained Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who pushed staffers to explore their options.

The ultimate result was not in doubt. Getting to the ultimate was in doubt, he added. For us, it was going to get done. Why not find a way to do it since they werent going to show up for a committee meeting? To them, slowing down the process just gave them the time to do that and try to make cases against us.

Democrats were told Wednesday morning that Finance would reconvene. But they were not given any indication that Hatch would alter the rules, according to a spokesman for Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top committee Democrat.

Democrats complained that Mnuchin misled the committee by initially misstating his personal wealth on a financial disclosure form and misrepresenting under oath how OneWest Bank, which he led, scrutinized mortgage documents. And Wyden pointed to discounted stock buys Price made in a health-care company, first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

We felt it was important to say we need this information to do our job, Wyden said Wednesday after Hatch forced the party-line vote.

Other Republicans dismissed accusations that the GOP is bending Senate procedure to quickly confirm Trumps picks.

I think people expect senators to show up for work and be there. Its unfortunate, said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Democrats defended their actions as a necessary step to register their frustration after a small group of Republicans refused to allow them to question the nominees once new information came to light.

Over at the Environment and Public Works Committee, where Pruitt is being considered, Republicans vented their frustration at the lack of Democrats who came.

A GOP aide displayed a chart designed to show how quickly past EPA nominees were confirmed. Notably missing, however, was Obamas second EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy. Nominated in March 2013, McCarthy was not confirmed until July of that year at one point, Republicans on the Environment committee boycotted a meeting to demand that McCarthy answer more questions.

That was not a new president, newly elected, said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), arguing that the GOP boycott differed because it happened during Obamas second term. A newly elected president, I believe, has a right to their Cabinet.

Sean Sullivan and Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report.

Read more at PowerPost

Read the original:
Republicans aggressively push approval of Trump Cabinet nominees - Washington Post

Sens. Susan Collins(R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Wednesday that they intend to vote against the confirmation ofPresident Trumps education secretary nominee, Betsy DeVos, givingDemocrats two of at least three Republican votes they would need to block her appointment.

Republican leaders said that despite the defections, they are confident DeVos will be confirmed.

Shell be confirmed you can take that to the bank,Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the majority whip.

Both Collins and Murkowski said on the Senate floor that while they appreciate DeVoss efforts to help at-risk children through advocating for vouchers and charter schools, they are concerned that DeVos lacks the experience needed to serve as education secretary and improve public schools, particularly in rural areas. DeVos has no professional experience in public schools, and she did not attend public schools herself or send her own children to them.

The mission of the Department of Education is broad, but supporting public education is at its core, Collins said. Im concerned that Mrs. Devoss lack of experience with public schools will make it difficult for her to fully understand, identify and assist with those challenges, particularly for our rural schools in states like Maine.

[Senate panel votes in favor of Betsy DeVos, Trumps education pick]

Murkowski said children in remote communities across Alaska depend on a strong public school system, and that she isnt persuaded that DeVos has the background to strengthen that system. As she left the Senate floor, Murkowski said that her decision was the result of an outpouring of responses from Alaskans as well as her own research. I was trying to get to yes. I just couldnt, she said.

A final confirmation vote is expected on the Senate floor either over the weekend or early next week, according to aides to Republican leadership.

There are 48 senators in the Democratic caucus. If they vote as a bloc against DeVos, and if they are joined by Murkowski and Collins, the vote to confirm would be 50-50. In that event, Vice President Pence a staunch DeVos supporter would cast the tiebreaking vote. It would mark the first tiebreaking vote by a vice president since Richard Cheney did so nine years ago. Joe Biden, Cheneys successor, went eight years as vice president without ever breaking a tie.

[DeVos questionnaire appears to include passages from uncited sources]

If a third Republican senator votes against DeVos, she could lose the confirmation vote. Several are facing constituent pressure to oppose the nominee, including Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) Im all for her, Toomey told The Washington Post on Wednesday.

Alaskas junior senator, Dan Sullivan (R),would not say whether he will vote yes or no on DeVos. But his tone suggested he would lean toward support.

He detailed concerns similar to what Sen. Murkowski was talking about. We have very almost frontier-type education environments where theres only one school in the communities. Theres no choice at all.

But Ive had very good meetings with the nominee, he added. From my perspective I think shes going to be adequately focused on those issues.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the Trump administration has zero concerns that DeVoss nomination will be voted down.

I am 100 percent confident she will be the next secretary of education, Spicer said at Wednesdays news briefing.

[Six astonishing things Betsy DeVos said and refused to say at her confirmation hearing]

Trumps nomination of DeVos, a Michigan billionaire and major donor to Republican causes,has triggered a sharp partisan battle, and she has faced an unprecedented level of opposition for a prospective education secretary. Both of the nations largest teachers unions mounted campaigns against her immediately after her nomination, but opposition broadened after she stumbled over basic education policy questions during her Jan. 17 confirmation hearing. Parents and teachers have flooded the Senates phone lines and email inboxes in recent weeks, urging senators to vote against DeVos.

The nation is speaking out. [S]enators need to listen, said Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association.

Several previous nominees were confirmed on a voice vote or by unanimous consent. The deepest divisionto date was over the nomination of John B. King Jr., who was confirmed in March 2016 on a 49-40 vote. Even then, key Republicans including Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Education Committee, and Mitch McConnell (Ky.), the majority leader voted in Kings favor, giving his confirmation a bipartisan blessing.

Kelsey Snell, Paul Kane and Ed OKeefe contributed to this report.

Read more here:
Two Republican senators say they will vote against DeVos for education secretary - Washington Post