[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 20 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S719-S741]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                Congratulating The New England Patriots

  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, before getting to the matter at hand, I 
thought I would take a minute to congratulate the New England Patriots, 
the Kraft family, Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, and all of the Patriots 
players and fans everywhere for the greatest comeback victory in Super 
Bowl history. They really demonstrated the grit and determination and 
resilience that New Hampshire and New England is known for, and we are 
very, very proud of them.
  Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in opposing the 
nomination of Betsy DeVos to serve as the Secretary of Education. Our 
Nation recognized early in its history that public education is a 
necessary foundation for our democracy. It is critical that we continue 
to support a strong public education system that prepares all of our 
young people to participate in our democracy and to compete in the 21st 
century workforce.
  All public officials, regardless of their party affiliation, should 
share a reverence for the importance of public education to our 
country's success, both now and into the future. They must show a 
commitment to enforcing our laws so that all students have the 
opportunity to succeed. I agree with my colleagues that Mrs. DeVos has 
not shown a commitment to or an understanding of these principles, and 
that is why I oppose her nomination.
  This nomination process has been extremely disappointing from the 
start. Mrs. DeVos failed to provide critical information on her 
finances. Members of the HELP Committee were only given 5 minutes to 
question Mrs. DeVos on her views on our Nation's education system.
  In the questions she did answer before the committee, Mrs. DeVos 
demonstrated a complete lack of experience in, knowledge of, and 
support for public education. She was unable to address basic issues--
issues any New Hampshire school board member could discuss fluently.
  She showed that she lacks an understanding of issues facing students 
with disabilities. She has potential conflicts of interests that she 
still has not answered basic questions about. She supports diverting 
taxpayer dollars to private schools without accountability 
requirements.
  As Governor of New Hampshire, I supported public charter schools. 
They play an important role in driving innovation in education and in 
providing additional opportunities for nontraditional learners, but 
they must meet the same standards as other public schools.
  In Detroit, Mrs. DeVos led efforts to oppose accountability 
requirements, even for for-profit charter schools. In her testimony 
before the HELP Committee, she declined to support enforcing 
accountability requirements. It is clear that Mrs. DeVos would pursue 
policies that would undermine public schools in my home State of New 
Hampshire and across our Nation.
  In the past several weeks, thousands of Granite Staters--including 
students, parents, teachers, principals, and superintendents--have 
called and written into my office. They have shared their concerns 
about Mrs. DeVos. They understand that she is completely unqualified 
for this position. Our children, their families, and our Nation deserve 
better than a Secretary of Education who does not value public 
education.
  Ensuring access to public education for every student is an issue 
that is deeply personal to my family. Shortly after my husband Tom and 
I welcomed our first child into the world, our son Ben, we found out 
that he had severe and pervasive physical disabilities. It became clear 
to Tom and me that we were going to need a little bit of extra help if 
our son was going to have the kind of future we all want our children 
to have.
  We were lucky because we found that help in our community--not only 
among friends and neighbors but in a public school system that welcomed 
Ben. I still remember the day that a schoolbus pulled into our 
driveway. We wheeled Ben onto the lift and up into the bus, and off he 
went at age 3 to his first day of preschool--a publically funded, 
inclusive preschool. As I sat on the stoop and watched the bus pull 
away, I found myself thinking that if Ben had been born a generation or 
two earlier, Tom and I would have been pressured to put Ben in an 
institution. There wouldn't have been the resources in our community or 
in our school system to include Ben.
  But because of the work of the champions--the families, the 
advocates--who went before the Hassan family, Ben was able to go to 
school in his hometown. He was able to learn and to make friends, to do 
what we all want our children to do. That is the power of public 
education. It is the power of making sure that all kids are included.
  Our family was able to live like any other family and feel like any 
other family because Ben could go to school in his hometown. As Ben 
went from preschool to elementary school to middle school to high 
school, we found that his peers accepted him, interacted with him, and 
grew with him. I still remember a day when I got a call from one of 
Ben's teachers, saying that the tire on his power wheelchair had gone 
flat. That is the type of call that a parent of a child with complex 
needs dreads because it means that you have to stop everything--because 
if the wheelchair can't move, your child can't go through their day.
  But instead of my needing to take a day off from work and pursue the 
repair of Ben's chair, it was other students in our Career and 
Technical Education Center in Exeter who came forward and said: ``We 
can fix that.'' Their education preparing them for a trade and a career 
served Ben's needs that day beautifully. Both Ben and his peers learned 
that day. Ben's experience in public education was made possible 
because of so many advocates, educators, and families who came before 
our family.
  But this was not always the case for students who experience 
disabilities. When I served in the New Hampshire State Senate, I grew 
to know a woman named Roberta. Roberta, born in the early 1950's, had 
spent a good portion of her life in our State's school for individuals 
with disabilities. Roberta left that State school as we began to work, 
after the passage of the IDEA, to bring people out of institutions and 
into the communities.
  Later, as Roberta learned to advocate for herself and tell her story, 
she recorded some of her memories from the Laconia State School, the 
separate school--so-called school--for students with disabilities. 
Roberta wrote:

       Some of the attendants and residents at the Laconia State 
     School sexually, verbally, emotionally and physically abused 
     and assaulted me. The staff said they did this to me because 
     I misbehaved or acted silly. The attendants and residents 
     there hit and kicked me with their hands and feet. They 
     pulled my hair, whipped me with wooden or metal coat hangers, 
     wet towels, hair brushes, mop and broom handles, hard leather 
     belts, straps, rulers and hard sticks, stainless steel 
     serving utensils and clothes.

  Roberta adds:

       Additionally, they bullied me by laughing at me and calling 
     me names. They spat at me, bit and pinched my arms and other 
     body parts causing me pain. The employees and supervisors at 
     the institution threw buckets of cold water on my body, 
     clothes and all. They said that the cold water would calm me 
     down.

  Roberta's experience was, unfortunately, what life was like for some 
students with disabilities before IDEA. Years later, after Roberta left 
Laconia State School, after she was reintegrated into her community, 
she appeared before a State senate committee that I was chairing 
because she was the main proponent of a law that we passed in the New 
Hampshire State Senate to remove the word ``retarded'' from all of our 
State statutes. Roberta knew that it was the judgment of people who 
first interacted with her, people who believed she had intellectual 
disabilities, that caused her parents to believe that they had to put 
not only Roberta but her sister Jocelyn in an institution. Both Roberta 
and Jocelyn happened to have the misfortune of being born with 
disabilities.
  It is that contrast between Roberta's experience and my son's that 
keeps me focused on the importance of making sure that we include all 
children in our public school system but also that we have the laws in 
place to ensure that they get the free appropriate education that all 
American children deserve.

[[Page S720]]

  Unfortunately, Mrs. DeVos has demonstrated a lack of understanding of 
the challenges facing students with disabilities. At our hearing 
earlier this month, I questioned Mrs. DeVos on whether she would 
enforce IDEA. Not only did she decline to assure Senators that she 
would enforce the law to protect students with disabilities, but she 
was confused about whether IDEA was indeed a Federal law to begin with.
  While I am pleased that Mrs. DeVos later clarified that she is no 
longer confused about whether IDEA is a Federal law, she has done 
nothing to reassure me that she would enforce it or that she 
understands how fragile the gains we have made under IDEA are.
  The voucher system that Mrs. DeVos supports has often, intended or 
not, hurt individuals who experience disabilities. Children and 
families lose legal protections enshrined in the IDEA. In some cases, 
students and their families have to sign away their civil rights before 
they can receive their vouchers. Yet many of the private schools that 
take those vouchers--the schools that Mrs. DeVos wishes to push 
students to--lack basic resources or accommodations for children who 
experience disabilities.
  So if a family determines that the school that has accepted their 
voucher really does not have the resources or the expertise to educate 
their child, they have no legal recourse. Mrs. DeVos's unfamiliarity 
with IDEA, her comments on students with disabilities was something my 
office heard about often from Granite State parents who contacted the 
office with concerns about her nomination.
  A mother from Hopkinton, NH, wrote to tell me about her daughter who 
attends Hopkinton High School and experiences severe disabilities--is 
nonverbal and requires assistance for all aspects of her daily care.
  This mother wrote:

       Despite all of this, because of the extraordinary support 
     we have received, she is living a rich and loving life at 
     home and is part of the public school system. I have no 
     confidence that Betsy DeVos would understand or support the 
     role that public schools have for taking care of all 
     students.

  This mother also called Mrs. DeVos's lack of understanding of IDEA 
``appalling.''
  I also heard from a parent from Concord, NH, who said:

       My stepdaughter currently has a 504 plan for both a 
     physical and cognitive disability at Concord High School, 
     who, incidentally, are doing an excellent job of working with 
     her to make sure her learning needs are met. My children 
     deserve a future and so do all children.

  This parent said she was feeling ``vulnerable'' as a result of Mrs. 
DeVos's nomination. Parents all across our Nation deserve to know that 
the rights of their children will be protected, and they are rightfully 
concerned with Mrs. DeVos's nomination.
  In New Hampshire, I am proud of our work to build a future where 
every child can get the kind of education they need to be competitive 
and successful leaders in the 21st century economy. Just last week, I 
visited Souhegan High School in Amherst, NJ. Souhegan has become a 
pioneer in competency-based education. I visited numerous classrooms 
where students were doing hands-on lessons in Earth science, in 
literature to make sure they could master the material before them in a 
way that would stick with them.
  They were great examples of what we have learned about the importance 
of hands-on, project-based learning, how much better students retain 
information, knowledge, problem-solving skills, when they actually have 
a problem to solve, and how important it is for them to learn to 
collaborate with their fellow students, just the way we expect people 
to collaborate as a team in the workplace.
  After I visited the classes, the students at Souhegan had formed a 
panel to talk with me. There, students with a variety of interests, 
backgrounds, and education levels talked to about how important it was 
for them to have control of their own learning, to learn in a way, in a 
style that worked for them to work with their peers and build off of 
each other's strengths and learn from each other.
  I also talked with them about New Hampshire's pilot, project-based 
competency assessment program called PACE, something that New Hampshire 
received waivers to do over the last year, and they are in the process 
of continuing right now. New Hampshire is piloting a program that moves 
us away, just as was recommended and foreseen by the Every Child 
Succeeds Acts from high-stakes, one-time testing to project-based 
assessments that are built into the project-based competency learning 
they are doing.
  We are seeing great success with this pilot, and schools across the 
country are beginning to adopt it as well. That is the power of strong, 
innovative public education. This was an approach developed by teachers 
and parents and students and our Department of Education and our 
statewide school board as well as local school boards together. Just as 
we have important initiatives surrounding project-based learning in New 
Hampshire, we also have strong public charter schools.
  I still recall a visit to our North Country Charter School in one of 
the more rural parts of New Hampshire, a school that was formed--a 
regional effort--to allow students for whom traditional high school was 
not working, whether it be because of their learning style, because of 
particular events that were happening in their home, or other emotional 
or developmental issues.
  It allows them to come together and go to school in a way and in a 
place that works for them, keeping them in school, helping New 
Hampshire meet its goal set in law that no child drop out of high 
school before age 18.

  The strength of the students I saw at the Country Charter School 
graduation was extraordinary; students who would overcome particular 
challenges, whether it was personal, whether it was academic--speaking 
for themselves and about themselves and their vision of their own 
future to a crowded, excited room of friends and family.
  That is another kind of public education that supplements our 
statewide public education system and is something we can work together 
to do, holding all schools accountable. The vision that Mrs. DeVos, on 
the other hand, outlined and has devoted much of her work to, would 
dismantle the progress we have made, diverting taxpayer dollars to 
private, religious, and for-profit schools without accountability 
requirements.
  Mrs. DeVos advocates for a voucher system that leaves out students 
whose families cannot afford to pay additional tuition costs, and 
leaves behind students with disabilities because the schools do not 
accommodate their complex needs. In his book, ``Our Kids,'' Robert 
Putnam notes that education should be a mechanism to level the playing 
field, but today the inequality gap is growing because affluent 
students start better prepared and are more able to pay.
  Putnam also points out that daycare and transportation needs 
constrain the amount of choice that poor parents have when it comes to 
voucher programs. We should all be working to fix that gap, but the 
voucher programs that Mrs. DeVos advocates for threaten to increase the 
gap. The system that Mrs. DeVos advocated for in Detroit, MI, has 
undermined public schools and hurt students in the process.
  In 2014, Michigan taxpayers spent $1 billion on charter schools, but 
laws regulating them are weak and the State demands little 
accountability. The Detroit Free Press reported on the Detroit school 
system, finding a system where school founders and employees steered 
lucrative deals to themselves or to other insiders, where schools were 
allowed to operate for years despite their poor academic records.
  The Detroit Free Press described a system with no State standards for 
those who operate charters and where a record number of charter 
schools, run by for-profit companies, refuse to detail how exactly they 
are spending taxpayer dollars.
  One Detroit mother said that Mrs. DeVos's ``push for charter schools 
without any accountability exposed my children and their classmates to 
chaos and unacceptable classroom conditions.''
  In Florida, the McKay Scholarship Program voucher for students with 
disabilities that Mrs. DeVos has pointed to also raises significant 
concerns, including no due process rights for students under IDEA, no 
accountability requirements for participating schools, and absolutely 
no evidence of student success.
  Additionally, the McKay voucher often does not cover the full cost of 
the

[[Page S721]]

private school, leaving parents responsible for tuition and fees above 
the scholarship amount, not to mention responsibility for 
transportation. This puts students and their families at risk. Rather 
than taking the approach we have in New Hampshire, where charter 
schools supplement a strong public education system, this system of 
unaccountable schools destabilizes and undermines public schools.
  Now, given that Mrs. DeVos's goals for K-12 education are what they 
are and the fact that we were only given 5 minutes to question her at 
the hearing, many key issues facing American students were not 
discussed at all in her confirmation hearing. In particular, we did not 
talk about higher education. When I was Governor of New Hampshire, I 
was proud of our work to make college more affordable, building a 21st 
century workforce pipeline for our businesses.
  We froze tuition for the first time in 25 years at our public 
university system, and we actually lowered it at our community 
colleges. We engaged in increasing and more robust job training 
efforts, where we partnered businesses with community colleges or other 
learning centers to make sure we were engaged in the kind of job 
training that would prepare students for the 21st century economy.
  I was hoping that at our hearing for Mrs. DeVos's confirmation, we 
would discuss higher education, but issues relating to higher education 
have been lost altogether in this discussion. What is clear, though, is 
that Mrs. DeVos has absolutely no experience in higher education. Her 
written responses following our hearing were troubling. On student 
debt, Pell grants, reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and job 
training efforts, her responses were vague and offered no vision for 
issues that are critical to millions of Americans. When asked about 
     for-profit colleges, which have had a history of taking 
     advantage of students, including but not limited to our 
     veterans, Mrs. DeVos said she was agnostic--that is her 
     word--about the tax filing status of higher education 
     institutions. That is just not acceptable.

  I believe we should be expanding Pell grants. We should lower the 
interest rates on student loans. We should be expanding apprenticeship 
and job training opportunities. We need to crack down on predatory for-
profit colleges.
  We need an Education Secretary who understands and is able to focus 
on higher education, and it is clear that Mrs. DeVos does not have that 
experience or focus.
  Mr. President, our Founders understood that public education for our 
citizens was essential to the functioning of our democracy. In 1786, 
Thomas Jefferson wrote:

       I think by far, the most important bill in our whole code 
     is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No 
     other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of 
     freedom, and happiness.

  Generation after generation has worked to build on those ideals, 
including, as we do that work, more and more Americans in the process 
and creating a system that gives all students an opportunity to 
succeed.
  We need an Education Secretary who is committed to upholding that 
principle, not rolling our progress back, and we should all be working 
together to ensure that we have strong neighborhood public schools, not 
dismantling them.
  I join with my colleagues here today and the thousands from my State 
who have made their voices heard. We need just one more vote to defeat 
this nomination and to make clear that the Senate truly values our 
Nation's public schools.
  I surely hope that there is another Senator willing to break with the 
President and vote against this woefully unqualified nominee.
  We all have learned in this wonderful country of ours, with each 
generation, as we include more and more people who have been 
marginalized, left out, who weren't counted, that when we include them, 
we certainly honor their freedom and dignity--important and sufficient, 
of course, in its own right. Then when we do that, we also unleash the 
talent and energy of everyone, and that strengthens us all, helps us 
thrive, helps our economy grow, and makes sure that America not only 
leads but deserves to.
  It is our job in the Senate to listen to the thousands speaking up 
for our children and for the public education system that serves all 
Americans.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nominee 
for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. I am here not only to 
reiterate my concerns about Mrs. DeVos but to share some of the letters 
and emails I have received from Hoosiers about her nomination.
  Every Hoosier and every American deserves access to a quality 
education. It prepares our students to enter the workforce, to secure 
good-paying jobs, and to succeed. As I have said, after reviewing the 
record of Mrs. DeVos, I believe she lacks the commitment to public 
education needed to effectively lead the Department of Education. I am 
deeply concerned that she will not focus on priorities important to 
Hoosier families: expanding access to early childhood education, 
improving our public schools, and addressing increasing student loan 
debt.
  Now I want to share some of the concerns I have heard from people all 
across Indiana about Betsy DeVos.
  A current undergraduate student at Purdue wrote to me, urging me to 
vote against Betsy DeVos. The student wrote as follows:

       I am concerned that she will cause major damage not only to 
     our public K-12 schools, of which I graduated from, but also 
     to federal student aid programs, which allow many of my 
     fellow students and I to attend our nation's fantastic public 
     universities.

  A mother of three children in Fishers wrote:

       I believe our democracy needs well-funded and accountable 
     public schools for all. Mrs. DeVos demonstrates zero interest 
     in supporting strong public education. For the future of our 
     children, our democracy, and our standing in the global 
     economic system, I ask that you vote against Mrs. DeVos.

  A soon-to-be college graduate who is pursuing a career in public 
education wrote:

       I will be graduating from Indiana Wesleyan University in 
     Marion. I have spent the past semester student teaching at a 
     local school district in Gas City, IN.
       One of the largest reasons that I wanted to embrace a 
     career in public education is to push students to see their 
     potential, just as I had a teacher do the same for me. 
     Teaching is not simply facilitating learning, but rather it 
     is taking the time to fully invest in the students. Getting 
     to know their students, listening to what they have to say, 
     and using the resources presented to best prepare students to 
     succeed.
       I have been able to see this firsthand and put this into 
     practice as I have been in three different school districts 
     throughout my time at Indiana Wesleyan University. . . . As a 
     soon-to-be teacher in the state of Indiana, I ask you to 
     consider voting no for the nomination of Betsy DeVos for 
     Secretary of Education.
       I chose this path as it directly impacted me, and I want to 
     see students find success. With the right reform, we can see 
     this happen, but with the suggested reforms of Betsy DeVos, 
     we will not be able to help students succeed.

  Here's another story. This one is from Muncie.

       As a mother and public education advocate, I am writing to 
     request that you vote no to the appointment of Betsy DeVos as 
     Secretary of Education. As you are aware, there are many 
     challenges facing education in the United States. . . . Ms. 
     DeVos' track record in the state of Michigan would be 
     devastating to the country as a whole if she were to be given 
     the position of Secretary of Education. For the sake of my 
     children, their dedicated teachers and children across the 
     nation, I respectfully request your ``no'' vote to her 
     appointment.

  A woman in Zionsville wrote as follows:

       I feel that the DeVos agenda plans a dangerous voucher 
     program that robs public schools of money and allows 
     unprecedented support of K-12 programs with opaque standards, 
     curriculum and accountability. In Indiana we have struggled 
     with the skills gap and graduating students that are prepared 
     for the available workforce positions. . . . I beg you to 
     speak out against the appointment of Ms. DeVos as Secretary 
     of Education.

  Hoosiers have the right to an educational system that strives for 
high standards, transparency, and success, and I do not believe the 
DeVos model will be able to deliver on any front.

[[Page S722]]

  A retired special education teacher who taught in Mishawaka for 24 
years wrote:

       I implore you to vote ``no'' on the confirmation of Betsy 
     DeVos as Secretary of Education. Her selection by Donald 
     Trump was clearly an attempt to further dismantle the public 
     school system in the United States. The poor, the 
     disadvantaged, and the disabled would suffer great 
     educational setbacks with her as Secretary of Education.

  A woman in West Lafayette wrote:

       As a future special education teacher, I find it horrifying 
     that [Ms. DeVos] seems to be unaware of the IDEA Act, which 
     protects the rights of millions of children with 
     disabilities. It is completely unacceptable that our country 
     should have someone in charge of education who is unaware of 
     this monumental law. Education is so important for the future 
     of this country and everyone deserves equal opportunity to 
     get a good education. . . . This is why I ask you to please 
     vote no for DeVos.

  In a letter from Greenwood, a woman wrote:

       As a mother of two children, one with severe disabilities, 
     please know I do not support Betsy DeVos as Secretary of 
     Education. I can only hope that you will bear with me as I 
     offer the story of my son below.
       My son was born full-term and healthy. From 18 hours until 
     two weeks old, he fought for his life. At two weeks old, a 
     heart defect was discovered. Next was heart surgery, 
     recovery, and he was home at exactly one month old. Saying we 
     were ill-prepared for the future would be an understatement, 
     to say the least.
       We had no way of knowing the repair to his heart would not 
     also repair all the damage to his brain and body. He was 
     eventually gifted multiple diagnoses: cerebral palsy, 
     congenital heart disease, significant mental and physical 
     disabilities and severe GERD. To match the diagnoses, he was 
     also provided coordinating medical equipment: wheelchair, 
     communication device, standing equipment, a special seating 
     device, feeding pump, and leg braces.
       Skip ahead to today and you'll discover a 15-year-old doing 
     his absolute best to find his place in this quick-paced 
     world. It took a long time, but over the past 3 to 4 years, 
     he mastered his communication device and has shown he is 
     capable of learning and understanding.
       While it took all this time for him to show us, it took the 
     relentless dedication of very special teachers to really make 
     it happen. His teachers worked tirelessly to develop 
     extremely specific Individualized Education Plans for him. I 
     am certain without the Individuals with Disabilities Act and 
     Free Appropriate Public Education, he would not have achieved 
     his current level of learning. I also feel his teachers would 
     not have been able to get him to this level without the right 
     educational tools in our public schools.
       I wanted you to feel my emotions and how difficult his life 
     truly is. Please don't make his education any harder than it 
     already has been.

  A former public schoolteacher in Indianapolis wrote:

       I watched all of Betsy DeVos's Senate confirmation hearing. 
     As the minutes churned by fear, fury, and grief built within 
     me. I will not sit back and watch as a nominee for Secretary 
     of Education prepares to take the helm who does not commit to 
     protecting children in public schools. I hope you stand with 
     me to firmly reject Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. 
     We must commit our care, our love, and our attention to 
     upholding the promise that all kids deserve a shot at success 
     through education.
       These kids are our future, and we owe it to them to lead 
     wisely. Unfortunately, Ms. DeVos will not lead us to that 
     future.

  A mom in Evansville wrote:

       I have one child in college and two others in public 
     elementary schools. My children have received and are getting 
     very good education in public school and are in advanced 
     classes. I am very concerned about the appointment of a woman 
     who has been advocating against our public school system for 
     years. We must do better for our children. Please fight for 
     our public schools and our children, and do everything in 
     your power to keep Betsy DeVos from becoming our Secretary of 
     Education.

  This is just a small sampling of the letters and emails I have 
received from Hoosiers all over our State who are deeply troubled and 
who are opposed to Betsy DeVos. They wrote to me not as Republicans, 
Democrats, or Independents but as concerned Hoosiers, as moms and dads 
who love their kids. They are worried about an issue we should all be 
able to agree on: the importance of ensuring our children have access 
to a quality education.
  While I said I would vote against Betsy DeVos's nomination, I will 
continue to fight for our public schools, our teachers, and our 
students. I will continue fighting for them because ensuring our 
students have access to good schools and good teachers lays a 
foundation for our students to reach their potential, and it is 
fundamental to their success and in turn our country's success.
  We love our schools, we love our kids, and all we want is the best 
for them and an extraordinary education. That is why I will be voting 
against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to 
Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York may accept 18 
minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nominee for the 
Department of Education, Betsy DeVos. I cannot vote for her 
confirmation.
  The mission of the Department of Education, as mentioned, ``is to 
promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness 
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.'' The 
Department achieves this by establishing policies on Federal financial 
aid for education and distributing as well as monitoring those funds, 
collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research, 
focusing national attention on key educational issues, prohibiting 
discrimination, and ensuring equal access to education. After 
considering that mission, I do not believe Betsy DeVos should be the 
next Secretary of Education.
  Surely we can agree that every child in the United States should have 
access to a first-rate education to ensure a chance of a good job and 
good pay. I know this from my own life experiences and, in particular, 
the impact that a good teacher can have on a young child. You see, my 
first grade teacher, Mrs. Frances Wilson, God rest her soul, attended 
my law school graduation. I would not be standing here were it not for 
the education I received, and I know that to be true for so many of our 
colleagues in the Senate.
  After I reviewed Betsy DeVos's nomination, including her record and 
confirmation testimony, and after speaking with teachers and students 
and parents from across California, it is clear she does not understand 
the importance or the impact of a public school teacher like Mrs. 
Frances Wilson.
  Why? Well, first and foremost, our country needs a Secretary of 
Education who has demonstrated basic competency when it comes to issues 
facing children. They just need to know what they are talking about. 
When questioned in the hearing by my colleague Senator Franken, it was 
clear Mrs. DeVos didn't know the difference between two basic theories 
of testing: proficiency and growth. This, in fact, is one of the 
biggest debates occurring in the education community today, and she was 
unaware of the significance of the nuances and the difference between 
the two. As we know, proficiency essentially asks whether a student has 
a basic competency or understanding of a subject; looking at a child 
and asking: Is that third grader reading at third grade reading level?
  Growth. It is a question of whether a student is progressing from 
year to year or asking if a third grader who started their year reading 
at first grade level can now read at second grade level. Has there been 
progress? This debate will define how we are judging schools across the 
country, and her lack of knowledge and fluency demonstrates her 
complete lack of experience, understanding, and curiosity about one of 
the hottest issues in modern education.
  Now let's talk about guns in schools. At first, she at best showed 
ambivalence toward gun-free school zones, but it gets better. She went 
on to say that she does not have any questions, and that without any 
questions, she does not believe you need guns in schools. Then she went 
on to say, well, but we need guns in schools, yes, because grizzly 
bears may pose a significant threat to the safety of our children and 
perhaps their education.
  I say Ms. DeVos poses a far greater threat to public education.
  Let's talk about title IX. Another moment in her hearing is when the

[[Page S723]]

nominee refused to commit to actually enforcing title IX. Now, let's be 
clear that title IX was brought into being because our country had a 
rampant policy of discrimination against women in our education system. 
For example, women were not being admitted to the University of 
Virginia. Even Luci Baines Johnson, the daughter of President Johnson, 
was barred admission to Georgetown University after she got married 
because it was common perception at that point in time that if she was 
married, then that is what she should pursue. She should pursue a 
career in the home and could not be capable of doing that as well as 
working outside the home. Title IX is a law that guarantees women and 
girls the right to a safe education, free from discrimination.
  Let's be clear how title IX helps today. It is title IX that required 
universities to prioritize a safe environment for girls--safe from 
abuse and sexual assault. We know this is a real issue. In fact, the 
Department of Education estimates that one in five women has been 
sexually assaulted during her college years.
  As attorney general of California, I was proud to bring together 
colleges and local law enforcement agencies to create protocols for 
investigating and prosecuting sexual assaults. It has helped schools 
and law enforcement implement changes to California law to better 
protect survivors of sexual assault. I championed new methods to allow 
California to process rape kits and clear a longstanding backlog of 
rape kits in the State crime labs. I fought to ensure that survivors 
have the support they need and that their attackers face swift 
accountability and consequences for their crimes.
  There is no question that ending campus sexual assault should be a 
moral imperative for our country, and it should be a priority for the 
next Secretary of Education of the United States. For that reason, it 
is unfortunate--and, yes, troubling--that Mrs. DeVos will not guarantee 
enforcement of title IX.
  Then let's talk about the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, or IDEA. I know my colleague Senator Hassan has spoken extensively 
about this. This act has been around for decades--four decades, to be 
exact. Before it existed, we were not prioritizing these children. We 
did not give them the services they needed. We had written off a whole 
population of our children. When asked by my colleague Maggie Hassan 
about this piece of legislation, the nominee showed a complete lack of 
knowledge about how it is implemented. That is simply unacceptable. We 
cannot go back to a time when we wrote off a whole population of 
people, and it cannot only be the parents of those children--but all of 
us, as the adults of a society and a country--who look out for our most 
vulnerable children.
  Then, let's talk about for-profit colleges, which I know something 
about since I had to sue one of the biggest for-profit colleges, which 
was defrauding students as well as taxpayers. I know about the reality 
of abuses of for-profit colleges, and I applaud my colleague Elizabeth 
Warren, who asked whether or how she would protect against waste, 
fraud, and abuse at for-profit colleges. She asked this of the nominee, 
and it was troubling to see that the nominee was equivocal at best.
  Now, let's talk about the nominee's record as it relates to the 
children of her home State of Michigan. Since the growth of charter 
schools, Michigan has gone from performing higher than average on the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress in the year 2000 to below 
average by the year 2015. A 2015 Federal review found an ``unreasonably 
high'' number of charters in Michigan which were among the bottom 5 
percent of schools nationwide. According to a report from Chalkbeat, an 
education publication, when the Michigan legislature attempted to add 
oversight for both charter schools and traditional public schools in 
Detroit, the nominee's family opposed the measures and poured $1.45 
million in the legislature's campaign coffers--an average of $25,000 a 
day for 7 weeks. The oversight measures, she is happy to say, never 
made their way into the legislation. We cannot have someone who wants 
to lead our highest Department of Education who does not support the 
importance of oversight, of making sure that the children are getting 
the benefit of their bargain.
  According to data released from the Michigan Association of Public 
School Academies in 2015, only 17 percent of Detroit charter school 
students were rated proficient in math, compared to 13 percent of 
students in traditional public schools. Even Eli Broad, a great 
Californian and strong supporter of dramatic education reforms, has 
expressed strong concerns about the nominee's nomination. That should 
tell us all something.
  Now let's talk about the impact on California. During the campaign, 
President Trump said he would take $20 billion from existing Federal 
education programs--which, by the way, is more than half of the 
Department's budget for K-12 education--and instead put that money into 
a voucher-like system. The President also committed to getting rid of 
the Department of Education in its entirety, which would put half a 
million teachers out of work. The nominee has committed to working with 
him on these plans.
  Let's be clear. This plan would be devastating for public schools, 
including the schools in California that serve over 6 million students. 
This also means California students could lose $2.3 billion in Federal 
education funding, which could end critical programs. For example, the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act serves thousands of 
California's disabled students and serves them well. But his plan would 
slash $1.3 billion in Federal funding--money that our children rely on. 
The Trump proposal to cut the Department of Education budget would also 
harm California's students. Some $3.8 million in Pell grants for 
California students could be lost, 43,000 or more teacher positions in 
California could be eliminated, and $8.96 billion in student loans 
could be at risk for California's college students.
  The bottom line is this--fewer teachers, fewer resources for students 
and parents, and less aid to make college affordable. Maybe one school 
will cut their after-school program or stop teaching the arts, or it 
doesn't have a guidance counselor or decides they will just let class 
size balloon because they don't have enough teachers. We know that is 
not good enough for any of us.
  There is a clear connection between public education and public 
safety. When I was the district attorney of San Francisco, there was a 
rash of homicides one year. All of us in a position of leadership were 
rightly concerned, and we did the predictable and the right thing: We 
figured out how to put more cops on the street, we looked at our gang 
intervention strategies, and we figured out very predictable and good 
ways of reacting to these crimes after they occurred.
  But I asked a question. I asked a member of my staff: Do an 
assessment and tell me who are these homicide victims? In particular, 
who are the homicide victims under the age of 25? The reason I asked 
that question is pretty simple. There were just a lot of them. Sure 
enough, the data came back to me. It included the fact that, of the 
homicide victims under the age of 25, 94 percent were high school 
dropouts.
  Over the years, I have taken a closer look at this issue. I have 
learned that 82 percent of the prisoners in the United States are high 
school dropouts. I have learned that an African American man who is a 
high school dropout between the age of 30 and 34 is two-thirds as 
likely to be in jail, have been in jail, or dead. There is a direct 
connection between what we do or do not do in our public education 
systems and the price we all pay in terms of our public safety. I say 
to everyone concerned: There are good reasons to care about the 
education of children. If nothing else, be concerned about why you have 
to have three padlocks on your front door. If we don't educate our 
children in our public school system, we all pay the price.
  Mrs. DeVos's agenda means fewer teachers and resources and worse 
schools. Fundamentally, her lack of understanding of the rights 
teachers have today, the rights parents have today, and the rights 
students have today mean one thing: She cannot--and will not--uphold 
the law if she does not understand the law. Her testimony has made 
clear that she does not understand IDEA, she does not understand 
initiatives like gun-free zones in schools, and she does not understand 
the history or the need for title IX.

[[Page S724]]

  If Betsy DeVos gets her way and cuts funding for public schools, that 
means fewer teachers. If she does what she did in Michigan, that will 
mean poor outcomes with fewer high school graduates. What we know is 
that these are the kinds of policies that prevent us from actually 
achieving all that we know we can be as a country, which is about 
paying attention to all the members of our society, and, in particular, 
our children, and investing in them with the education they so richly 
deserve so they can one day stand in this Chamber as a Member of the 
Senate, doing the best of what we know we can do as a country.
  Simply put, I will say this. It is clear from her testimony that 
Betsy DeVos has not done her homework. She hasn't done her homework in 
terms of preparing for the job, and she did not do her homework in 
terms of preparing for her hearing. I say that right now the Senate 
must do our job, we must do our homework, and we must refuse to confirm 
her as the next Secretary of Education.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I wish to begin by congratulating our new 
Senator from California for her first speech in the Chamber. I know it 
is not her first official speech, but she is here on this important 
night to talk about the state of public education in this country and 
this confirmation process. So I thank her for her remarks. I also want 
to thank the ranking member of the Education Committee of the Senate, 
Senator Murray from Washington State, who is here tonight as well. I 
know she has been here all day today and was here all day on Friday as 
well, because the set of issues we are discussing are so important.
  As I sat here listening to the Senator from California, I was 
thinking about the work we have done recently on the committee on which 
we both serve--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--
with the leadership of Chairman Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, 
and Ranking Member Senator Murray, from Washington State, to pass a new 
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind--a bill that if you said: Let's 
have a rally on the steps of the Capitol to keep No Child Left Behind 
the same, not a single person in the United States would have shown up 
for that rally. It took this body 7 years--7 years after we were 
supposed to reauthorize No Child Left Behind--to actually do the work. 
But when we did the work, we were able to get it through the committee 
once unanimously. This committee has on it, among other people, Senator 
Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Senator Rand Paul from the Commonwealth 
of Kentucky. They seldom agree on anything, but they agreed on that 
bill. We got it out of the committee almost unanimously, and then 
passed it on the floor of the Senate with over 80 votes. It passed with 
a huge bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives, and it was 
signed by the President. It was 7 years too late, but we were able to 
do it in a bipartisan way--which is what education issues should always 
require. It is a shame that tonight we are here with a partisan divide 
because of the selection President Trump has made to lead the 
Department of Education.
  So I just want to say thank you again to Senator Murray for her 
leadership.
  Since our first days before we founded this country, education has 
been an American value. In Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, 
colonists recognized their collective responsibility to educate their 
children. They wrote into law that children, both wealthy and poor, 
must be taught to read and write, and to learn a skill, like 
blacksmithing, weaving, or shipbuilding, to secure their economic 
independence. As democracy took root in early America, public education 
became not just an ideal but an imperative. An enlightened public, the 
Founders believed, was essential to self-government.
  Thomas Jefferson wrote that we must ``educate and inform the whole 
mass of the people. . . . They are the only sure reliance for the 
preservation of our liberty.''
  Benjamin Franklin believed: ``The good education of Youth has been 
esteemed by wise Men in all Ages, as the surest Foundation of the 
Happiness both of private Families and of Common-wealths.''
  With education, the common man would be able to select leaders wisely 
and fight back against the tyrannical instincts of those in power. He 
would be able to understand, maintain, and protect his rights, so that 
government could not usurp authority and devolve into despotism.
  In a country ``in which the measures of Government receive their 
impression so immediately from the sense of the Community as in ours,'' 
George Washington explained, ``knowledge . . . is proportionally 
essential.''
  This set of beliefs represented a fundamental break from the 
aristocratic ways of the old world. A republic that was ``for the 
people'' and ``by the people'' required an educated people.
  With this new world also came a new conviction that individuals could 
determine their own future, that their birth or circumstance no longer 
limited their potential. This foundational idea grew to become the 
American dream: Every child, regardless of who her parents are or where 
she came from, could achieve an education and grow up to achieve a 
better life.
  Over time, as our Republic became more and more democratic, as the 
right to vote and lead was secured by African Americans and women, 
education became the fundamental means by which Americans sought to 
secure their liberty and their equality.
  Perfecting our Union by expanding education has not come without 
struggle, but we have often succeeded because we have recognized that 
symbiotic relationship among the needs of our country and the success 
of individual Americans and our aspiration to move forward. This 
included the need for a universally literate workforce in the 1830s and 
the creation of Horace Mann's Common School Movement; the demand at the 
turn of the 20th century to replace out-of-date Latin schools with 
progressive high schools that prepared students for the emerging 
industrial workforce; the challenge of providing World War II veterans 
with a career path and the creation of the GI bill for college 
education; and the need to tear down the barriers of Jim Crow school 
systems in the 1950s and 1960s.
  Too often, as a country, we confronted these challenges too late and 
at the tragic expense of our fellow American's potential. ``With all 
deliberate speed'' has proven not fast enough, especially for children 
living in places like the Mississippi Delta and South Central Los 
Angeles.
  At each of these turning points, we have asked for more from our 
public schools. To their credit, our educators--teachers, specialists, 
and principals--have risen to the challenge, many times much sooner 
than the rest of us. They have helped us build a nation admired for our 
forward progress, for opportunity, and for equality.
  That is the American ideal from our founding until today. I come to 
the floor tonight with a sense of urgency because our generation is at 
risk of being the first American generation to leave less opportunity 
to our children than we inherited. If we do that, we will have broken a 
fundamental American promise to our children.
  In our Nation, education is supposed to be at the heart of 
opportunity, but today our education system fails far too many kids. 
Schools that once were engines of opportunity and democracy are now too 
often traps for intergenerational poverty.
  As a result, only 3 out of 10 children born to very low-income 
families in the United States will make it into the middle class or 
higher. Only 4 out of 100 will make it to the top 20 percent of income 
earners. Already, the United States has less social mobility than at 
least 12 other developed countries--among them, Canada, Japan, and 
Germany.
  In America, children growing up in poverty here hear 30 million fewer 
words than their more affluent peers by the time they reach 
kindergarten. In fourth grade, only one in four of our students in 
poverty is proficient in math, and fewer than that can read at

[[Page S725]]

grade level. As few as 9 will receive a bachelor's degree by age 25.
  As a nation, we are falling behind the rest of the world. When George 
Bush, the son, became President in 2000, we led the world in college 
graduates. Today we are 16th in the world. American 15-year-olds score 
lower than their peers in 14 countries in reading, 36 countries in 
math, and 18 in science.
  Much of the rest of the developed and developing world is figuring 
out how to produce more and more educated citizens, while the United 
States is standing still and therefore falling behind. We must refuse 
to accept outcomes that are a tragedy for our children, a threat to our 
economy, and an immeasurable risk to our democracy.
  To make change, we need to stop treating America's children as if 
they belong to someone else. To meet our children's needs, we must 
invent a 21st century approach to education, a system for the delivery 
of free, high-quality education built for the future, not for the past.
  We must have the courage to shed old ways of thinking, abandon 
commitments to outdated approaches, and explore new ideas. This 
reenvisioned system must focus like a laser on what is best for kids, 
not what is convenient for adults. It must be comprehensive and 
integrated from early childhood to postsecondary education.
  A 21st century system of public education must set high expectations, 
demand rigor, and create meaningful accountability. This system must 
embrace different kinds of schools and create a culture that is focused 
on continuously learning from each other--among traditional, charter, 
and innovation schools, and across districts, cities, and States.
  We need to change fundamentally how we prepare, recruit, place, 
train, retain, and pay teachers and school leaders. That entire system 
belongs to a labor market that discriminates against women and said you 
have two professional choices: one is being a teacher and one is being 
a nurse. So why don't you come teach Julius Caesar every year for 30 
years of your life in the Denver Public Schools, where we are going to 
pay you a wage far lower than anybody else in your college class would 
accept.
  Those days are gone. We had discrimination in the labor market that 
actually subsidized our school system because very often the brightest 
students in their class--very often women--had no other career options 
and therefore were willing to teach.
  That whole system needs to be transformed in the 21st century. We 
have 1.5 million new teachers whom we have to hire over the next 6 to 8 
years in this country, and we have no theory about how to hire them or 
how to keep them. Fifty percent of the people are leaving the 
profession now in the first 5 years.
  This new system of public education should embrace technology and 
personalized learning. We must create space for innovation in school 
autonomy, and we must also provide choice to parents and kids, but our 
goal is not, and should not be, school choice for choice's sake.
  For a youngster in a low-income family, there is no difference 
between being forced to attend a lousy school and being given the 
chance to choose among five lousy schools. That is no choice at all. It 
is certainly not a meaningful one. The goal is, and must be, to offer 
high-quality education at every public school so parents can choose 
among grade schools in their neighborhood and throughout their cities 
and towns.
  We must refuse to accept the false choice I have heard over and over 
again during this confirmation process that you either support school 
choice in whatever form or you defend the status quo, just as we must 
reject the idea that you cannot support public schools and advocate for 
change.
  This old rhetoric and manufactured political division will not work 
for our kids. We need to rise above the narrow, small politics that 
consume our attention and permit and prevent us from making tough 
choices. Instead, we need to recognize that a 21st century education 
can and should look very different than a 19th century education or a 
20th century education, and no matter what approach or method of 
delivery, it must be high quality.
  The good news is, we know it is possible to reverse course and create 
meaningful change. Several cities around the country have already begun 
creating roadmaps to this 21st century approach. Denver is one of them.
  In Denver, we made a deal--create a public choice system that 
authorizes charters, creates innovation schools, and strengthens 
traditional schools. We empowered schools through autonomy and worked 
to create a culture of shared learning and innovation focused on all 
ships rising. We demanded quality, and we implemented strong 
accountability. High-performing schools were rewarded, replicated, and 
expanded. Low-performing schools had to be improved or be shut down.
  We made tough decisions. We closed schools. I sat in living rooms, 
classrooms, and gymnasiums with parents urging them to demand more from 
the school district, even if it meant that their child had to go to a 
different school. Along with concerned citizens, teachers, and 
principals, I went door-to-door to enroll kids in new schools.
  Denver created innovative teacher and school leadership policies. We 
tried to rethink the tired model of the last century and create a new 
career for this one. That is why today in Denver you will find teachers 
teaching other teachers and being paid for it, knowing that their job 
is not only to educate their students but also to improve the honorable 
craft of teaching so our kids can achieve even more.
  We used the levers of Federal law, strong accountability, and civil 
rights protections as the backbone of change. We cannot have made the 
changes we did had it not been for the national demand for improvement 
in our schools--the civil rights impulse that underlies the Federal 
involvement in public education, as well as the courage of our 
community to demand something better for our children. Denver has begun 
to see the results of hard work.
  Over the last decade, Denver Public Schools students' achievement 
growth increased faster than the State's in both math and English. This 
outcome was achieved by students qualifying for free and reduced-price 
lunch and also students not qualifying for free and reduced-price 
lunch. Latino and African-American students' achievement in English and 
math grew faster than their counterparts' throughout the State.
  Sixty-one percent more students graduated in 2016 than in 2006. We 
have a long way to go, but I would suspect that if we could say of 
every urban school district in America that we are graduating 60 
percent more students this year than we were a decade ago, we would be 
feeling a lot better about where we are headed as a country. In Denver, 
over that time, the overall ontime graduation rate increased almost 30 
points, and the ontime graduation rate for Latino students has doubled 
since 2007.
  Since 2006, Denver Public Schools' enrollment has increased--many 
cities have lost enrollment--over 25 percent, making it the fastest 
growing urban school district in America, partly because Denver has 
grown but also because parents and kids and families have now found 
schools that are responsive to their families' needs and supportive of 
their children.
  I am the first to say, and I always will be the first to say, that we 
still have a lot of work to do to make sure the ZIP Code Denver's 
children are born into doesn't determine the education they 
receive. But cities like Denver are moving in the right direction. Now 
we need to move a nation in the right direction.

  Tonight, as we stand here in this marbled Chamber among these statues 
that tie us to our past, I am thinking of our future. I am thinking of 
the millions of poor children across time zones our Founders could not 
have imagined, heading home after a long day at school, shifting their 
backpacks of books to find a comfortable spot, sharpening pencils for 
math and pastels for art, clearing a space on a busy dinner table for 
homework. I am thinking about children teaching other children, older 
brothers and sisters teaching their younger siblings, expecting that 
they will have more opportunity than their parents. I am remembering 
the naturalization ceremony I attended just last Friday at Dunn 
Elementary School in Fort Collins, CO, where Kara Roth's fifth grade 
class welcomed 26 new Americans from 13 countries to the United States. 
I am thinking about

[[Page S726]]

teachers and principals and students--while we are here speaking--who 
are up tonight, planning for tomorrow, and hoping for a future that 
allows them to review at home before they teach tomorrow the best 
lessons for teaching the productive and destructive forces of 
volcanoes, what Scout learns in ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' or the 
mathematical reasoning that calls on us to invert the second fraction 
when we divide. I am imagining a country that fulfills our generational 
responsibility by providing quality early childhood education to every 
American family who wants it--a K-12 school for every child to which 
every Senator would be proud to send his or her child or grandchild and 
access to college and skills training that prepare students for 
economic success without shackling them to a lifetime of debt.
  All of that leads me to comment briefly on President Trump's 
nomination for Education Secretary. I have no doubt that Mrs. DeVos 
sincerely cares about children. It is not her fault that President 
Trump nominated her. So let me be clear that I am addressing the 
President and not Mrs. DeVos when I say that this nomination is an 
insult to school children and their families, to teachers and 
principals, and to communities fighting to improve their public schools 
all across this country.
  Even with the limited questioning allowed at the education committee 
hearing, it quickly became clear that Mrs. DeVos lacks the experience 
and the understanding to be an effective Secretary of Education. The 
bipartisan progress of American education achieved over the last 15 
years was predicated on a deep commitment to three principles: 
transparency, accountability and equity.
  Mrs. DeVos's testimony and public record failed to establish her 
commitment or competence to protect any of these foundational 
principles. Her ``let a thousand flowers bloom'' approach asks American 
school children to take a huge step backward to a world without the 
high expectations and transparency that we need to give parents and 
taxpayers the information they deserve on how our schools are 
performing. Those high expectations, paired with the clear commitment 
to accountability, ensure that our successful schools should be 
replicated and our struggling schools should be held accountable for 
improvement, regardless of whether it is a choice school or a district 
school.
  Finally, we know that the Secretary of Education holds the sacred job 
of ensuring that every child in America gets the resources and the 
support they deserve, regardless of their income, background, or 
educational needs. This commitment to equity is at the core of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mrs. DeVos has shown no 
evidence of her commitment to be the torch bearer for both excellence 
and equity. Her ideology and dogmatic approach communicates a lack of 
understanding and appreciation of the challenges we face and the depths 
of solutions they demand.
  A commitment to choice without a commitment to quality serves 
ideology rather than improvement, and a commitment to competition 
without a commitment to equity would forsake our democratic ideal that 
a free, high quality public education must open the doors of 
opportunity for all. For the first generation of students to whom that 
promise feels elusive, they deserve an Education Secretary who has the 
courage, competence, and commitment to orient our mighty education 
system to build opportunity for all. Mrs. DeVos shows none of those 
skills, and our young people cannot afford to wait 4 years for their 
chance at the American dream.
  Millions of Americans recognize this, which is why this nomination 
has generated more controversy than any other. I look forward to 
working with anyone--as I have over the years, including even Mrs. 
DeVos--anyone interested in improving our children's opportunities and 
taking seriously the future of our democracy. But I will not support 
her nomination. I will vote no on this nomination and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the course of this debate, over the 
last 9 hours, plus 6 hours on Friday of the 30 hours that we have on 
this, many Senators have come to the floor to talk about their concerns 
about the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education.
  There are open questions about her extensive financial entanglements. 
There are open questions and a clear concern about her lack of 
understanding of basic education issues. We have heard that time and 
again, as well as the many ways in which her vision for our education 
system is really at odds with where families and communities nationwide 
want us to go.
  But let me take just a moment to focus on one major concern in 
particular. It is a public health threat that I know is deeply 
concerning for families and communities across this country, and that 
is the epidemic of sexual violence on our college campuses. One out of 
five women and 1 out of 71 men are sexually assaulted while in college. 
In 2013 alone, college campuses reported 5,000 forcible sex offenses, 
and a recent study indicated that number could be much greater.
  There should be no question that sexual violence on our campuses is a 
great, widespread, and unacceptable problem--one that I expect any 
incoming Secretary of Education to be informed about, to be concerned 
about, and committed unequivocally to confronting head-on.
  Much of the discussion so far has been about the commitment of a 
Secretary of Education to our K-12 system. Serious concerns have been 
raised, but it is important to know in this debate that the Secretary 
of Education also has responsibility over our higher education 
institutions.
  In our hearing, Betsy DeVos actually agreed with me that President 
Trump's horrifically offensive leaked comments from 2005 describe 
sexual assault. She was clear. But I was deeply disappointed, to say 
the least, in Mrs. DeVos's responses to simple questions about whether 
she would seek to continue the Obama administration's work to protect 
students and stand with survivors. When she was asked whether she would 
uphold the guidance issued under the Obama administration to hold 
schools accountable for stronger, more effective investigations of 
sexual assault, she wouldn't commit to that. She would not commit to 
that. When I asked her whether she would continue key transparency 
measures, like weekly public reports on active investigations into 
potentially mishandled sexual assault cases, she dodged the question.

  These answers are especially concerning given that Mrs. DeVos has 
gone so far as to donate to an organization dedicated to rolling back 
efforts to better support survivors and increase accountability. Let me 
tell you that again. Mrs. DeVos has gone so far as to donate to an 
organization dedicated to rolling back efforts to better support 
survivors and increased accountability.
  Let's be clear. The epidemic of sexual assaults on our college 
campuses means that in States across the country, students' basic human 
rights are being violated. I am deeply proud to see the work that has 
been done on this issue over the last few years. Survivors have bravely 
stepped up to make clear they expect far better from their schools and 
their communities. By speaking out, by being courageous and speaking 
out, they have shown other survivors they are not alone.
  Key university leaders have made fighting campus sexual assault a top 
priority by developing new partnerships in their communities and 
prioritizing prevention. New measures to increase transparency and 
awareness went into effect in 2013 thanks to the reauthorization of the 
Violence Against Women Act. These are hard-won steps forward on an 
issue where some Democrats and Republicans have finally been able to 
find common ground.
  There is much more to do. The next Department of Education should not 
be standing on the sidelines, much less taking us backward on an issue 
that is so critical to student safety on campus.

[[Page S727]]

  So I hope that as my colleagues are listening to the debate here 
today, tonight, and tomorrow, that they consider what Mrs. DeVos's 
leadership at the Department of Education means on this issue, the 
issue of making sure men and women on our college campuses can go there 
to learn and not be worried about being a victim of sexual assault and 
having nowhere to turn and not have the confidence that their voices 
will be taken seriously.
  On another area, nominees for Secretary of Education have largely 
been people, over the past, who were very committed to our students, 
who had long careers dedicated to education, and who were focused on 
keeping public education strong for all of our students and for all of 
our communities.
  Public education is a core principle that our country was founded on, 
that no matter who you are, where you come from, or how much money you 
have, this country is going to make sure all young people get an 
education. That is how our country has been strong in the past. That is 
how our country has to be in the future. Free public education.
  Well, Betsy DeVos is a very different nominee. She has spent her 
career and her fortune rigging the system to privatize and defund 
public education, which will hurt students in communities across our 
country. She is not personally connected to public school--except, by 
the way, through her work over the years trying to tear them down. She 
has committed herself for decades to an extreme ideological goal to 
push students out of our public schools and weaken public education.
  I can talk at length about Betsy DeVos's record of failure and her 
devastating impact on students, but all people really need to do is 
watch her hearing in our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee. Just go back and watch the hearing. This was a hearing that 
people across the country heard about--and for good reason--from local 
newspapers, to local news, to ``The Daily Show,'' to ``The View,'' and 
posts that went viral on social media. A lot of people in our country 
heard Betsy DeVos for the first time in that hearing. They were not 
impressed.
  She refused to rule out slashing investments in our public schools. 
She was confused that Federal law provides protections for students 
with disabilities. She did not understand the basic issues in education 
policy or the debate surrounding whether students should be measured 
based on their proficiency or their growth. She argued, as we have all 
heard, that guns needed to be allowed in schools across the country to 
``protect from grizzlies.'' Even though she was willing to say that 
President Trumps's behavior toward women should be considered sexual 
assault, as I just talked about, she would not commit to actually 
enforcing Federal law protecting women and girls in our schools. Her 
hearing, quite frankly, was a disaster. It was so clear to millions of 
families how little she really understood about education issues.
  I have to tell you, as a former preschool teacher myself and a former 
school board member, someone who got my start in politics fighting for 
strong public schools, as a Senator committed to standing strong for 
public education in America, as a mother and a grandmother who really 
cares deeply about the future of our students and our schools, I know 
that we can and we must do better for our children and our students and 
our parents and our teachers.
  The decision we are making here on whether to confirm Betsy DeVos for 
Education Secretary will help set the course for our public education 
system for years to come. So I hope, again, that our colleagues are 
listening to this debate and thinking about it and not just voting 
rotely on this. This is so important.
  Quite frankly, I am disappointed that our Republican colleagues have 
moved us so fast into this debate. I have been in the Senate a long 
time. I know what the usual practices are when we go through hearings 
and listen to nominees from Presidents who are Republican and Democrat, 
Republican majorities and Democratic majorities. I was here when the 
Senate was 50-50. There are practices we have to make sure that all 
Senators get the information they need so they can make a wise decision 
with their vote for which they will be held accountable.
  Quite frankly, the usual practices here were really being ignored. 
The right thing to do was being ignored. This nominee was jammed 
through like I have seen none other. Corners were being cut. The 
minority was being brushed aside. I really think that is wrong.
  Earlier this month, Republicans on the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee scheduled Mrs. DeVos's hearing even though she had 
not yet finished her standard ethics paperwork and even though she had 
not and still, by the way, has not answered my questions about her 
financial disclosures to our committee. In fact, when we started the 
hearing, the Republican chairman, the senior Senator from Tennessee, 
whom I have worked with greatly--we worked together to pass the 
replacement of No Child Left Behind. I have a tremendous amount of 
respect for him. But I was shocked and surprised when he preemptively 
declared that he would be limiting questions for each Senator to just 5 
minutes--a shocking and disappointing breach of committee tradition, 
clearly intended to limit public scrutiny.
  Mrs. DeVos is a billionaire. She has extraordinarily complicated and 
opaque finances, both in her own holdings and those in her immediate 
family. We know that she has invested in education companies, for-
profit companies, for decades. Over 100 conflicts were identified. Her 
ethics paperwork raises questions about the company in which she plans 
to remain invested. She still, by the way, has not fully answered my 
questions about her committee paperwork.
  As I told the Republican chairman at our markup, the process that has 
taken place on Mrs. DeVos's nomination is a massive break in the 
tradition of this body. We should not have had a vote in this committee 
until all Senators had received appropriate responses to reasonable 
questions and until a second hearing was held so that Senators could 
get these serious concerns addressed and do their job scrutinizing the 
nominee.
  Understand, we had a hearing. We were limited to 5 minutes each. And 
we did not have all of the paperwork, so we could not do our homework 
to make sure we were asking the questions we needed that needed to have 
a public debate. So, again, that is another reason I am deeply 
concerned about this nominee. We do not yet know whether there are 
conflicts of interest.
  For a Secretary of Education who wields tremendous power over our K-
12 system and our higher education system--as we all know, there have 
been tremendous questions over the past decade about access to higher 
education; whether you go to college and get the degree you have been 
promised; whether institutes have been responsible and accountable; and 
how we as the Senate and House can come together to make sure that when 
a student takes out a student loan or invests in a higher education 
institution, they know they are getting their money's worth and if 
there are taxpayer dollars involved, that the taxpayers are getting 
their money's worth as well. So conflicts of interest are extremely 
important to this nominee. To this point right now, here we are voting 
tomorrow, and we don't have the answers to those questions.
  So these are just a few things. I have been out here on the floor to 
talk about them. We have heard from many of our other colleagues. It is 
no surprise to me that this has lit a firestorm across the country. 
Having a Secretary of Education, someone who is responsible for our 
children's education--schools are the center of our community. 
Community members own those schools in their minds. This is where they 
send their kids to school, where they have basketball games, music 
concerts. It is where the community comes together. Yes, we all 
complain about public education. Who hasn't? But at the end of day, we 
love our local schools, and we want them to know that the Secretary of 
Education--the highest person in the land to oversee them--has that 
love, too, and is there because they want to make them better, not 
because they want to tear them down.
  So, yes, this nominee has taken off like no other because of her 
hearing, because of her conflicts, because she has attacked and gone 
after basic public education, which so many people

[[Page S728]]

are proud of in their own communities and want to make better. So I, 
like everybody else, have heard from many of my constituents, more than 
I can ever remember in my entire Senate career. This has ignited a 
public storm. I want to share some stories from my constituents who 
have reached out and urged me to vote against Betsy DeVos because they 
know better than anybody why their school is so important to them, why 
their teachers are so important to them, why their children's public 
education is so important to them.
  One of the major concerns I have continued to hear from my 
constituents about is her disconnect from the working class.
  A woman from Marysville, WA, said: Betsy DeVos, a billionaire 
herself, does not represent the working class and certainly not her 
family experience with public education.
  Betsy DeVos never attended public school or even sent her own 
children to public school.
  In Olympia in my State, an employee at a high-poverty public school 
says she works with some of the most in-need children in the area. She 
is very concerned that Betsy DeVos's push toward a privatized public 
school system would only benefit those in wealthy communities and leave 
her most vulnerable students behind. She believes Betsy DeVos would 
absolutely not look out for their best interests.
  In our rural communities, there is no private school to get that 
voucher and send your kids to. The policies she is pushing only mean 
that those schools will have taxpayer dollars taken away from them to 
send to other kids with vouchers to go to private schools, who live 
nearby or have the additional resources to use those vouchers to go to 
school.
  A teacher in Seattle wrote to me with a story that I can't get out of 
my head. It really inspires me to keep going in this fight. This 
teacher serves preschoolers with special needs who face a number of 
challenges. She teaches at a title I school, where most families are 
low income, and many of them are immigrants and non-native English 
speakers.
  She believes that her children deserve access to the best educators 
out there and that if DeVos's agenda was put in place--a system of 
privatized public education--her students would be failed, because 
without strong public schools, we would fail students who are low 
income or living with disabilities or impacted by trauma or who belong 
to racial or ethnic minorities. She says Betsy DeVos does not have her 
students' best interests in mind, and her students deserve the best, as 
I believe all of our students do, no matter their financial status, 
their race, their religion, or any other difference they might have 
from their peers.

  A mother in North Bend wrote to me expressing her worry that vouchers 
only benefit the wealthy, leaving the middle class and poor without the 
benefit of a good education. Being part of a middle-class family 
herself, she is proud that her first grader is already mastering 
addition and subtraction and is reading and writing sentences all 
because of her local public school.
  My constituent in Auburn said that money and ZIP Code should not 
determine who gets a better education, and she said that Betsy DeVos's 
worrisome policies would make that the case. She is strongly urging me 
to reject a nominee who doesn't look out for those who are the most in 
need.
  A man in Kelso wrote in, saying that the public school system is what 
ensures we all get a good education. It is what gives so many parents 
hope that their child can have an even better life than they had, that 
public education is a great equalizer for everyone to have a chance to 
succeed, and I couldn't agree more.
  Those are just a few of the letters I have gotten from people who are 
worried that the nominee's push for taking public tax dollars and using 
them for private schools and for-profit schools only, robbing our 
public schools of the resources they need, will not be the right choice 
for public education.
  I wanted to share a few other letters from my constituents who wrote 
to me regarding Betsy DeVos's nomination. One of them was from Seattle. 
She emphasized how important it is that our Secretary of Education be 
dedicated to providing a quality education to all students and to 
strengthening our public education institutions. She strongly believes 
that Betsy DeVos will not be that kind of Secretary.
  A retired teacher in Federal Way asked me to work as hard as I can to 
protect public education because she believes every child's right to a 
free and quality public education is at risk with Betsy DeVos's 
nomination.
  Many constituents expressed their disbelief that the nominee for 
Secretary of Education has absolutely no experience in public 
education. Her children never even attended a public school.
  One, a teacher in Bellingham, is fearful of an Education Secretary 
who doesn't truly understand what the needs of kids look like today. 
She asked how someone with no experience can be expected to lead our 
country's education system.
  A woman in Puyallup wrote to me, saying that education is the 
greatest gift we can give to our children, and she thinks that 
confirming Betsy DeVos, with her plans to weaken public education, will 
rob so many children of that gift.
  Mr. President, those are just a few of the letters I am getting. 
There are many more, and later this evening, I will be reading from 
some of those letters because they tell the story better than I do.
  I know some of our colleagues are wondering why this woman set off 
such a firestorm when her nomination came up and why so many people are 
calling and writing and rallying and letting their voices be heard.
  It is not easy to rally the public. This came from within. This came 
from many people in this country who understand, as so many of us do, 
that public education and the right to an education, free--free 
education is critical and fundamental and a core philosophy of this 
country that all of us want to be successful and want to be great 
again.
  To have a Secretary of Education who doesn't agree with that, who in 
fact promotes the exact opposite, who has said that our public 
education system is a dead end, who has proposed, promoted, and paid 
for campaigns to take public tax dollars to send to private, for-profit 
schools, that is not what our country was built on. It is not the 
foundation that our forefathers put out in front of us.
  They said: We are going to build a system unlike any other, where no 
matter who you are or where you come from or how much money you have or 
what you look like, in this country, we are going to make sure you get 
an education, a free education, paid for by all of us, to go to school 
in your community and to be who you want to be. That is a dream of this 
country, and we will not stand by and give our votes to a Secretary of 
Education who does not share that philosophy.
  That is why there is a firestorm. That is why parents and teachers 
and students and grandparents and community leaders and superintendents 
from across the country are writing us and asking us to vote no. It is 
not too late. If we have one more Republican who votes no, then we will 
be able to say to the President: Mr. President, we reject this nominee, 
and we ask that you send us one who will work with all of us to make 
sure our public education system is a core principle of this country, 
is valued by this country, and is pursued by the top person in the 
Department of Education, our Secretary of Education. It is not too 
late.
  With that, I have many more letters that I will be reading later. I 
know some of our other colleagues will be over here. Again, I ask 
everyone to stop and think. This is a critical nomination. It has hit a 
chord in our country because people do care. They want our country to 
be strong. They want this country to be great, and they know our public 
education system is an absolutely critical part of that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Presiding Officer.

[[Page S729]]

  Mr. President, I rise this evening in opposition to the nomination of 
Betsy DeVos to be our next Secretary of Education. This is one of the 
most important jobs in our government. The Department of Education 
bears responsibility for making sure that every child in America has 
the opportunity to fulfill his or her potential, which means that the 
Secretary of Education has an enormous amount of power to shape our 
Nation's future. This is not a job for amateurs.
  President Obama's first Secretary of Education was Arne Duncan, who 
had spent 7\1/2\ years building a record of accomplishment as CEO of 
Chicago's public school system, previous to which he had been director 
of a mentoring program and the founder of a charter school.
  When Secretary Duncan stepped down, he was replaced by Dr. John King, 
Jr., the recipient of a doctorate in education administrative practice. 
He had served as Deputy Secretary under Arne Duncan and was previously 
the education commissioner for the State of New York. Each brought to 
the job a background in public education that informed their 
understanding of what students, parents, teachers, and administrators 
need in order to succeed, which brings me to Betsy DeVos.
  There are reasons to be skeptical about Mrs. DeVos's nomination right 
off the bat. As my Republican colleague, Senator Collins of Maine, put 
it: ``The mission of the Department of Education is broad, but 
supporting public education is at its core.''
  Well, in Mrs. DeVos, President Trump sent us a nominee with no 
experience in public education. Mrs. DeVos has never been a public 
school superintendent or a public school principal or a public 
schoolteacher. She has never attended a public school. She has never 
sent a child to a public school. Mrs. DeVos has no formal background in 
education, no classroom experience, and no demonstrated commitment to 
supporting public education whatsoever.
  In fact, Mrs. DeVos has a long history of actively undermining public 
education. She and her family have spent millions of dollars advocating 
for an ideology that would steal funds from public schools in order to 
fund private and religious education. Let's take a moment to talk about 
what that means.
  Mrs. DeVos ran a political action committee called ``All Children 
Matter,'' which spent millions in campaign contributions to promote the 
use of taxpayer dollars for school vouchers. The argument was that 
these vouchers would allow low-income students to leave the public 
school system and attend the private or religious school of their 
family's choice. Mrs. DeVos has described this as ``school choice,'' 
claiming that it would give parents a chance to choose the best school 
for their children, but that is not how it works. In reality, most 
school vouchers don't cover the whole cost of private school tuition, 
nor do they cover additional expenses like transportation, school 
uniforms, and other supplies, which means the vouchers don't create 
more choices for low-income families; they simply subsidize existing 
choices for families who could already afford to pay for private 
school.
  As it happens, we have a real-life test case that we can look at to 
determine whether Mrs. DeVos's argument holds water. Mrs. DeVos heads 
up a voucher program in the State of Indiana, and guess what happened. 
Today, more than half of the students in the Hoosier State who received 
vouchers never actually attended Indiana public schools in the first 
place, which means that their families were already in a position to 
pay for private school. Indeed, vouchers are going to families earning 
as much as $150,000 a year.
  I am sure these families appreciated the extra help, but as of 2015, 
nearly half of Indiana's children relied on free and reduced-price 
lunch programs. These are the kids Mrs. DeVos claims would be helped by 
school vouchers; instead, taxpayer dollars were taken away from public 
schools that remain the only choice for these low-income families and 
given to families who could already afford private school, who were 
already sending their kids to private school. That is the reality of 
school vouchers.
  That is why after Mrs. DeVos developed a similar proposal for a 
voucher program in Pennsylvania and an analysis projected that, just 
like in Indiana, the vouchers would mostly benefit kids already 
enrolled in private schools, voters rejected it on multiple occasions. 
Yet Mrs. DeVos and her family continued their fight for school 
vouchers. In fact, she has been such a fervent advocate that her 
political action committee, ``All Children Matter,'' received the 
largest fine for violating election law in Ohio's State history--a $5.3 
million fine that nearly a decade later she still hasn't paid.
  Why do this? The evidence is clear that Mrs. DeVos's voucher 
obsession doesn't help low-income families. Quite to the contrary, it 
represents a serious threat to the public school system--a system that 
as many as 90 percent of the children rely on--but Mrs. DeVos describes 
as ``a dead end.''

  The truth is that Mrs. DeVos's education advocacy isn't really about 
education at all. She describes her goal as follows: to advance God's 
kingdom. Now many families choose to send their children to religious 
schools, and many children receive an excellent education at religious 
schools, but it is the public school system that the Secretary of 
Education is supposed to focus on, and that is not the part that Mrs. 
DeVos and her family have put at the forefront of her advocacy.
  Mrs. DeVos spent a decade serving on the board of the Acton 
Institute, which seeks to infuse religion in public life, beginning 
with public education. She and her family have devoted millions to 
promote the institute's work, including promoting ideas like this:

       We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain 
     independence for Christian schools until we train up a 
     generation of people who know there is no religious 
     neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no 
     neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in 
     constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious 
     order which finally denies the religious liberty of the 
     enemies of God.

  Those are the words of Gary North, a Christian Dominionist for whom 
the Acton Institute serves as a forum.
  Of course, not everyone who believes in the potential of parochial 
schools shares his view, but this is the kind of stuff Mrs. DeVos and 
her family have spent millions and millions of dollars promoting. It is 
fine for someone to hold strong religious views and to advocate for 
those views and to spend their family fortune encouraging others to 
adopt, but it is entirely fair to ask whether the mission of building a 
Bible-based social, political, and religious order is compatible with 
the mission of the Department of Education. So, yes, based on Mrs. 
DeVos's radical ideology, I was skeptical when her nomination was sent 
to the Senate, but I understand that others in this body may not have 
shared my discomfort.
  Within this Chamber we have important differences when it comes to 
education policy and, for that matter, the appropriateness of using 
taxpayer funds to advance God's Kingdom. And do you know what? That is 
fine. But we all have the exact same responsibility when it comes to 
vetting the President's Cabinet nominees.
  Each of us is called upon to determine not just whether we agree with 
the nominee's ideology but whether that nominee is free from relevant 
conflicts of interest and, critically, whether the nominee is 
competent, whether he or she is capable of doing the job. Making that 
call is our job, and that is why we have the process that we have. It 
is why we ask to see the nominee's financial information. It is why we 
ask them to submit written answers to questionnaires about their 
experience and their record. And it is why we have them come to the 
Senate to sit in front of committees and to answer our questions.
  Unfortunately, during her hearing, Mrs. DeVos proved beyond a shadow 
of a doubt not only that her ideology is fundamentally incompatible 
with the mission of the Department of Education but that she is 
fundamentally incompetent to be its leader. Throughout the hearing, she 
was unable to answer basic questions about her views on important 
issues, she was unfamiliar with basic concepts of education policy, and 
she was unwilling to make basic commitments to continue the 
Department's work on behalf of our most vulnerable children.
  Let me give you one example of what I mean. During my 5 minutes of 
questioning, I asked Mrs. DeVos to weigh in

[[Page S730]]

on the debate about measuring growth versus measuring proficiency. I am 
going to take a few moments right now to make sure that everyone here 
and everyone watching at home understands what this debate is about and 
just how central it is to the future of education policy. The 
difference between the two approaches, proficiency and growth, is very 
easy to explain.
  Let's say a fifth grade teacher has a student who comes into the 
classroom reading at a second grade level. Over the course of the 
school year, the teacher brings the student up to a fourth grade level. 
If we are measuring growth, we would say: Well, that teacher brought 
that student up two grade levels in 1 year. That teacher is a hero.
  If we are measuring for proficiency, we would say: Well, that student 
is still reading below grade level. That teacher is a failure.
  That is the difference between measuring growth and measuring 
proficiency. It took me all of 30 seconds to explain that, but I could 
spend all night talking about what this debate means for students, 
teachers, school leaders, and our entire education system.
  Everyone agrees that there should be accountability in our education 
system--accountability for school systems, schools, teachers. We want 
to know we are getting results. That was the core idea behind all the 
standardized testing in No Child Left Behind. The problem was that No 
Child Left Behind set up a system in which we assessed student learning 
by measuring proficiency and only proficiency. As the law was 
implemented, all sorts of problems emerged from taking this approach.

  For example, teachers in Minnesota would tell me how measuring 
proficiency would lead to what they called ``a race to the middle.'' 
See, measuring proficiency only measures whether or not students are 
performing at grade level--at this line of proficiency, at grade 
level--and a teacher is measured by what percentage of her students or 
his students are above proficiency or at proficiency. A teacher does 
not get credit for helping kids who were already well above grade level 
to perform better, and they don't get credit for helping kids who are 
way below grade level start to catch up. So we had this race to the 
middle because it is a yes-or-no question: Did this student achieve 
proficiency or not? A teacher's entire career could depend on how many 
of his or her students met that arbitrary goal.
  So under this system, understand this, please. A teacher had a strong 
incentive to ignore all of the students at the top who were already 
going to meet proficiency. No matter what you did to that kid, that kid 
was going to beat proficiency in the No Child Left Behind test at the 
end of the year. They had a strong incentive to ignore all the kids at 
the bottom because, no matter what you did, that student wouldn't reach 
proficiency. The only thing--or one of the only things--I liked about 
No Child Left Behind was the name. And we were leaving behind the kids 
at the top and the kids at the bottom because of the insistence on 
proficiency.
  I can't overstate how central this issue is to education, and I can't 
tell my colleagues how important it is to educators across America. If 
you talk to any State education secretary, any district superintendent, 
any local school board member, any principal, any classroom teacher--
and, heck, parents--they will have an opinion on measuring growth 
versus measuring proficiency.
  So when Mrs. DeVos came before the HELP Committee, I asked for her 
opinion on this very basic--this extremely basic--extremely important 
question, and she had no idea what I was talking about. Let me be 
clear. She wasn't reluctant to declare her opinion. She wasn't trying 
to strike a middle ground. She did not know what I was talking about.
  We would not accept a Secretary of Defense who couldn't name the 
branches of the military. We would not accept a Secretary of State who 
couldn't identify Europe on a map. We would not accept a Treasury 
Secretary who doesn't understand multiplication. In fact, in nearly any 
circumstance, if a candidate for a job is asked a question that basic 
and that important and simply whiffs on it the way that Mrs. DeVos did, 
there is no second question. There is just a thank you for your time, 
and we will let you know, and will you please send in the next 
candidate.
  Earlier this year, the University of Minnesota hired a new head 
football coach. I wasn't there for the interview. But imagine if the 
first question for a candidate for football coach of your university 
was as follows: How many yards does it take to get a first down? And 
imagine if the candidate answers as follows: Thank you for your 
question, Mr. Athletic Director; I can pledge to you that I will work 
very hard to get as many first downs as possible to make sure, we hope, 
that we lead the team to touchdowns.
  This wasn't the question. The question was this: How many yards does 
it take to get a first down?
  Well, thank you again for the question. I can tell you this: I will 
look forward to working with you to prevent the other team from getting 
first downs also.
  Understand, that is how basic my question to Mrs. DeVos was, and that 
is how shocking it was that she simply didn't know enough about 
education policy to answer it.
  This inexplicable failure alone was enough for me to conclude that 
Mrs. DeVos lacked the knowledge and understanding that should be a bare 
minimum for anyone seeking the position. But the entire hearing--the 
entire hearing--was a showcase for her lack of qualifications. I would 
urge any of my colleagues who haven't had a chance to watch it. I urge 
you to do so before casting a vote for this nominee. It was one of the 
most embarrassing scenes I have witnessed during my time in the Senate. 
In fact, I believe it may have been one of the most embarrassing 
performances by a nominee in the history of the Senate.
  Asked about the right of children with disabilities to get a quality 
public education, she didn't know that this right is protected by a 
Federal law--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Asked 
about guns in schools, she suggested that maybe guns should be kept on 
hand in case grizzly bears attacked. This was in answer to a question 
from Senator Murphy, who in Congress represents Sandy Hook and who, as 
a Senator, represents those parents. That was her answer to him.
  Asked about whether she would hold private parochial schools that get 
taxpayer funding to the same standard of accountability as public 
schools, she couldn't or wouldn't say.
  Asked about a family foundation that has donated millions of dollars 
to an organization promoting conversion therapy for LGBT youth, she 
claimed she had no involvement, which is ridiculous. Even if Mrs. 
DeVos's own role as vice president of that foundation was a 13-year 
clerical error, as she now claims, she herself has donated 
approximately $75,000 to support that anti-LGBT organization's work.
  Now, understand that none of these were difficult questions. None of 
these were gotchas. All of these failures took place during a single 5-
minute-per-Senator round of questioning, because after that first 
round, the hearing was cut off and our chairman refused to allow any 
further questions.
  By the way, I would like to say a word about that move to cut off 
questioning. I have great respect for the chairman of the HELP 
Committee, Lamar Alexander. We have worked together, and he worked with 
Senator Murray on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, changing 
it to ESSA, the Every Student Succeeds Act. I respect the chairman 
tremendously. But his decision to end that hearing was wrong, and his 
rationale was simply false. Our chairman insisted that because 
Secretary Duncan and Secretary King had been subject to only a single 
round of questions, there was a precedent to deny the minority a second 
round of questioning of Mrs. DeVos. That simply isn't so.
  First of all, as I discussed earlier, both Ernie Duncan and John King 
were experienced education professionals with long records of public 
service. Even if Republican Members had occasion to disagree with them 
on policy matters, there was no question that their backgrounds had 
prepared them for the job of Secretary of Education, and that is the 
bigger point here. There were no further questions. In both cases, 
committee members weren't denied the opportunity for a second

[[Page S731]]

round of questioning. They simply chose not to engage in one. Indeed, 
when I asked the Congressional Research Service, they confirmed that 
those hearings did not establish the precedent that our chairman 
claimed.
  Instead of allowing us to question Mrs. DeVos further, the chairman 
invited us to submit additional questions in writing, presumably so 
that she could get some help from her Trump administration handlers in 
answering them. Even so, her written responses only served to further 
expose her own lack of understanding of how education policy affects 
Americans.
  For example, I asked Mrs. DeVos in writing about the effects of 
trauma and adverse childhood experiences on education. This is a 
subject I have been interested in for a long time. A lot of kids in our 
country live in extreme poverty. Some may have a parent in prison or a 
parent who has passed away. These kids may also experience physical 
abuse or emotional abuse or neglect. There may be some drug or alcohol 
abuse taking place in the house. Some have witnessed domestic violence 
in their home or street violence in their neighborhood. Some have seen 
siblings shot and killed right in front of them. Decades of research 
have shown that the trauma that comes from such adverse childhood 
experiences actually changes a child's brain chemistry and affects 
their behavioral development, their mental and physical health, and 
their chances to succeed in school and in society longterm. But 
research has also shown that these challenges can be overcome and that 
the kids who do overcome them are the most resilient kids you have ever 
met.
  Our public education system was designed to give these kids a 
shot. Teachers and administrators often lack the resources they need to 
give these children the chance they deserve. Because Mrs. DeVos's 
crusade for school vouchers would further rob our public schools of 
these limited funds, I wanted to know her thoughts on this important 
issue.

  This is take-home. Her written answer was brief and superficial. She 
wrote that she had heard that children are impacted by trauma and that 
trauma can cause difficulties in a child's education. That was it. Was 
she unfamiliar with the literature? Was she unwilling to acknowledge 
that poor kids face special challenges? Would she be remotely 
interested in addressing these challenges as Secretary of Education? I 
guess we may never know.
  I also asked Mrs. DeVos in writing about her vision for education in 
rural communities. As the Presiding Officer knows--the Governor and now 
Senator from South Dakota--many of our children in America attend 
school in rural America, 10 million American kids, schools that 
struggle with teacher shortages and transportation challenges. I asked 
how would her school choice agenda help them. In her response, she 
pointed to online schools, which are often run by for-profit companies, 
many with questionable records. In fact, one of the country's biggest 
online schools recently agreed to a $168.5 million settlement in 
California for allegedly defrauding families--a $168.5 million 
settlement.
  But even online schools that aren't out to rip off students often 
wind up failing them. A 2015 Stanford study showed that, on average, 
kids in online schools lose the equivalent of 72 days of learning in 
reading and 180 days of learning in math, and that is for each 180-day 
school year, which means that kids in online schools can fall up to a 
year behind in math.
  Of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, many rural communities 
lack reliable broadband access. I have been on rural education tours 
where I find students who go to a McDonald's parking lot so they can 
get WiFi to read their public school assignment or get materials to 
study. This is another answer that wasn't an answer at all, yet another 
piece of evidence that Mrs. DeVos is simply not up to this job.
  Like many Americans, I have serious concerns about many aspects of 
the Trump administration's agenda. Still, I believe that as a United 
States Senator, it is my job to evaluate each nominee on his or her own 
merits. That is why I voted for nominees like Secretary Mattis and 
Secretary Chao, even though I disagree with them on important issues. 
General Mattis, for example, has nearly a half century of military 
service under his belt, he has earned the respect of leaders on both 
sides of the aisle, and I believe he will be a much needed voice of 
reason on the Trump administration's foreign policy. Ms. Chao has a 
lengthy background in public service, including as Secretary of Labor 
and Deputy Secretary of Transportation. I believe she will bring 
significant and valuable experience to her important role. I may well 
take issue with the decisions they make and the agenda they implement 
as members of President Trump's Cabinet, but at the very least, each 
illustrated during their confirmation hearings that they have a basic 
understanding of the issues they will be responsible for. Mrs. DeVos is 
different.
  I have heard from Minnesotans about many of President Trump's 
nominees, but the outcry over this nomination far surpasses anything 
else. As of a week ago, my office had received 3,000 calls about this 
nominee. A grand total of 12 were in favor of her confirmation. 
Additionally, we received more than 18,000 letters and emails, and 
again the overwhelming majority of them have urged me to oppose this 
nomination.
  For example, a woman from Brainerd, MN, wrote to say that she never 
contacted one of her representatives before and didn't consider herself 
very political--in fact, she was neither a Democrat nor a Republican, 
but she has a daughter in second grade and a son beginning kindergarten 
in the fall, and she wanted me to vote against Betsy DeVos. ``How,'' 
she asked, ``is someone who has never had any experience in public 
education supposed to competently preside over it?''
  A mother of two public school students in Faribault, MN, wrote of 
Mrs. DeVos: ``As I watched her during the hearing, I was in disbelief 
that she would be appointed to such an important position.''
  Another constituent from Warren, MN, wrote: ``This woman is so 
unqualified, it's scary.''
  Last week, I went to dinner with Vice President Walter Mondale at his 
favorite restaurant. Afterward, he took me into the kitchen to greet 
some of the men and women who worked at the restaurant. One of the guys 
in the kitchen--I am a little unclear of whether he was taking dishes 
to the dishwasher or he was washing dishes. He is not a teacher, he is 
not an education advocate, just a guy who works in the kitchen. He 
said: ``Please vote against DeVos.''
  There is a reason why this nomination has been met with such 
overwhelming resistance on the part of the American people, and I know 
I am not the only one who has heard it. In fact, two of my Republican 
colleagues and fellow HELP Committee members who sat through that 
hearing, Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski, have stepped forward to 
announce they cannot vote for this nominee. They don't agree with me on 
every aspect of education policy, but, believe me, when we put ESSA--
Every Student Succeeds Act--together, the committee voted unanimously. 
There is a lot of agreement on education policy on our committee, but 
Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski saw the same hearing I did. Like 
me, they saw a nominee who simply does not understand the needs of the 
students our Secretary of Education is supposed to serve.
  I will let my colleagues speak for themselves as to the reasons why 
they will be joining me in voting against this nominee, but I would 
like to close by asking a few questions of my colleagues who are still 
considering a vote in her favor.
  If Mrs. DeVos's performance didn't convince you that she lacks the 
qualifications for this job, what would have had to have happened in 
that hearing in order to convince you? If you cannot bring yourself to 
vote against this nominee, is there anyone President Trump could 
nominate for any position that you could vote against? If we cannot set 
party loyalty aside long enough to perform the essential duty of 
vetting the President's nominees, what are we even doing here?
  The Constitution gives us the power to reject Cabinet nominations 
specifically so we can prevent fundamentally ill-equipped nominees like 
Betsy DeVos from assuming positions of power for which they are not 
qualified. Let's do our job. For the sake of our children, let's do our 
job.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S732]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to add a few Rhode Island 
voices to the voice of the Senator from Minnesota. By the way, I am not 
cherry-picking my correspondence to find the rare letters in opposition 
to this nominee. We have had an unprecedented avalanche of opposition 
to this nominee. It is running well more than 100 to 1 against her, and 
it is people from all walks of life.
  Here is a letter from William, a 12th grader in Pawtucket, RI. 
William took the trouble to write to me. Let me start with the topic 
line: ``Concern over Betsy DeVos.''

       Hello, Senator Whitehouse!
       My name is William and I am a senior at Blackstone Academy 
     Charter School, a public charter school in Pawtucket, Rhode 
     Island. I am contacting you today due to my concern about 
     educational equality, specifically Betsy DeVos' ability to 
     commit to practices that ensure that the children who need 
     the most help aren't forgotten about and brushed under the 
     rug. These children are our kids of color, as well as our 
     low-income kids attending urban public schools with limited 
     resources.
       Having attended a Pawtucket public school, I can 
     confidently say that there are some genuinely brilliant minds 
     here in this very city, in the areas where somebody like Mrs. 
     DeVos would least expect. Yet it also cannot be denied that 
     the students here begin their journey on ground that is 
     unequal to that of other kids who are not people of color, or 
     are not part of the public school system, etc. These bright 
     young saplings are being crushed before they are given the 
     chance to blossom, and that is a systemic problem that DeVos, 
     given her various shortcomings, will only serve to perpetuate 
     and make worse.
       DeVos, given her support of the privatization of public 
     schools and her open disdain towards the LGBTQIA community, 
     has established that she will not improve the experiences of 
     marginalized communities. Her interest is not the betterment 
     of education for people, but the monetization of education to 
     put money in her pockets and the pockets of people like her. 
     DeVos will never spearhead movements that promote equity in 
     education and will continuously disappoint us all throughout 
     her term which will not be defined by deviating from the 
     status quo and creating a system that our troubled but gifted 
     youth can thrive in. In fact, she will do the opposite.
       With this in mind I ask that you, Senator Whitehouse, 
     openly speak out against Betsy DeVos, and do everything in 
     your power to keep her out of the Secretary of Education 
     office. I also ask that you continue to remember me and 
     children like me; public school youth who could be incredible 
     if they are just given the opportunity to thrive.
       Thank you for your time!
       William.

  Now let's hear from Da-naijah, a 10th grader from Central Falls, RI.

       Dear Senator Sheldon Whitehouse,
       My name is Da-naijah, and I am in 10th grade at Blackstone 
     Academy School which is a public charter school. I live in 
     Central Falls, RI. I'm writing today because I'm concerned 
     about kids being able to afford college, regardless of 
     background. I care about this because I have plenty of 
     family members and friends who go to public school, and 
     they either want or are trying to go to college. I know 
     they will need help with paying for college because they 
     don't come from a very wealthy background. Fair and equal 
     education is so important to me because I think everyone 
     should be treated fairly regardless of how they look 
     because we are humans. I am concerned about Betsy DeVos 
     being nominated for Secretary of Education because she 
     doesn't have any experience with classrooms. Also because 
     she basically doesn't like public schools since she is 
     trying to make public school private and is trying to take 
     resources away from public schools. With that being said, 
     I hope that you do everything you can to help the kids in 
     public school get equal education and fair education as 
     much as private schools do. Please read my email when you 
     can and I would like to thank you for your time.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S732, February 6, 2017, near the bottom of the first 
column, the following language appears: My name is Da-naijah XXXX, 
and . . .
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: My name is Da-
naijah, and . . .


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

       Sincerely,
       Da-Naijah

  Next is Sara. She also lives in the city of Central Falls.

       I am writing today because I'm concerned about the 
     education in the public schools in my city. The students in 
     Central Falls are not given the education they deserve in the 
     environment of Central Falls as of schools in other 
     districts. This is important to me because my younger brother 
     is a disabled boy, and it worries me that he won't continue 
     to get the education he deserves. I'm very concerned about 
     the nominee Betsy DeVos because she has 0 experience in the 
     role of Secretary of Education and there are videos on almost 
     any social media as well as YouTube to prove it and it 
     clearly shows she has no experience and will put our 
     education, or I'll say ``future'' at risk. Please Senator I 
     hope you can do everything you can to prevent her nomination. 
     . . . Thank you!
       Sincerely,
       Sara

  The last one I will read is from Jennyfer, 10th grade at Blackstone 
Academy Charter School, from Pawtucket.

       I'm writing today because I'm concerned about students in 
     public schools not receiving the same and fair education 
     students in charter and private schools have. I care about 
     students in public schools because I want every student to 
     have the privilege of receiving fair and equal education as I 
     have the chance too.
       Fair and equal education is so important to me because I'm 
     a Latina and a woman of color, I deserve the same equal and 
     fair education as every other individual. I want my siblings 
     who go to a public school to receive the same education and 
     resources I get.
       I am concerned about Betsy DeVos [that she] will take that 
     privilege away from students in public schools.
       I hope you do everything you can to prevent Betsy DeVos 
     from taking this privilege away from students in public 
     schools.
       Thank you for your time!

  There are more letters that I could read, but one point I would like 
to make is that these are students writing from charter schools. In the 
flood of opposition from Rhode Island that we have seen to this 
nominee, it has included teachers, managers, and students in charter 
schools. There has been a notion developed that this is a battle 
between public schools and charter schools and that public schools 
aren't good, but they want to trap children in them; that charter 
schools are the way out; and that Mrs. DeVos will lead us off into that 
charter school happy land.
  The fact is, it is not that simple. We have great charter schools in 
Rhode Island, and we have some great public schools in Rhode Island. We 
have both. The charter school leaders are opposed to her nomination. 
Why is that? It is in part because the transition from charter to 
public schools can be done fairly or it can be done unfairly. In all of 
her work, Mrs. DeVos has shown that she would do it unfairly.
  There is an obvious--what demographers would call--selection bias 
between the kids who turn up in a charter school that they have to 
select to go into and the kids who are still in the public school that 
is left behind.
  The selection bias is based on all sorts of different reasons. It 
could be as simple as they have more engaged parents. The parents are 
interested enough in their education to take the trouble to sign them 
up for the charter school, and that creates a slightly different 
demographic than the ones who are left behind. It helps the charter 
school population, and it makes it easier for the charter school.
  Charter schools have authority that public schools don't have with 
respect to discipline; indeed, the ability to remove children and 
return them to the public schools. They are able to force students to 
sign contracts and agreements regarding their behavior. Public schools 
can't do that. Again, that confers an advantage on the charter school 
that a public school doesn't have.
  Children with disabilities often get immense support through the 
public school system. When they try to go to the charter school, they 
see that the supports for the children with disabilities aren't there, 
and so it doesn't make sense to move to a charter school. The charter 
schools tend to get a smaller population of children with disabilities. 
They don't have that additional expense of dealing with and meeting a 
child wherever their abilities and disabilities are. The public school 
keeps that expense.
  In Rhode Island, we have people flooding into Providence. We teach 
kids who speak something like 70 original languages in our Providence 
public schools. A new immigrant is going to go to the public school. 
That is where they go. It is going to take them time to get settled and 
to learn about America and to pick up enough language to understand 
that a charter school exists, to make the choice to move their child 
there, and by the time they do, fine, if they make the choice. But, 
again, the public school had to be there for them; again, it is an 
advantage to the charter school.

  It is all great for charter schools, but the idea that they are 
outperforming public schools and there is no recognition of that 
selection bias is just unfair to the public schools. It gets worse when 
you move from the selection bias on students to the funding because the 
way it often works and the way it works in Rhode Island is that the 
money follows the student. If you are

[[Page S733]]

in the public school and you are selected for a charter school, then a 
certain stipend of money goes with you to support that charter school.
  The problem is that as that money gets taken out of the public 
schools' budget, the costs in the public school didn't follow you to 
the charter school. The money followed you to the charter school, but 
many of the costs remained. If one child leaves a public school 
classroom and goes to a charter school, you still have to turn the 
lights on, you still have to hire the teacher, you still have to heat 
the building, you have maybe one less pencil and one less piece of 
paper in the room, but those are tiny costs. The fixed costs remain.
  That is a very serious threat to public schools. Anybody who truly 
supports the charter school movement, as our charter schools do, has to 
understand, first, the selection bias problem and understand that the 
testing and accountability has to be fair between public and charter 
schools and, second, this funding problem--that if you are simply 
pulling the money out of the public schools into charter schools and 
the costs are staying behind, what you are doing is crashing the 
revenues but leaving the expenses of public schools.
  The public school students are going to suffer from that. If you 
don't adjust for it, you are being unfair to the public schools, and 
you are being unfair to the students. This is a serious enough problem 
that our Providence City Council is debating the issue right now and, 
as students move to charter schools, trying to figure out: How do you 
provide adequate funding so you are not stripping the public schools of 
what they need to continue to teach the other students? Not only are 
they serious about trying to figure out this budget equation at the 
city council level, but Moody's, the service that looks at municipal 
budgets and determines how sound they are and rates municipalities, has 
looked at this problem of charter school movement and the remaining 
costs in public schools and identified it as a fiscal threat to 
municipalities.
  These are both real problems, and the refusal of Mrs. DeVos to 
grapple with them suggests to our charter school leaders and to me that 
this is not just an effort to enhance students in being able to go to a 
good charter school; this is actually an attack on public schools.
  There are all sorts of reasons somebody might want to knock down 
public schools. One is that they simply don't like teachers unions. 
Teachers unions tend to vote Democratic, let's face it. If you want to 
cripple teachers unions, destroy the schools they work in. That is a 
really nasty reason to get into this charter school fight, but it is 
real, and it is out there.
  A second is, if you want to bring for-profit investment into this 
space, a lot of money gets spent on education. People who could figure 
out how to make money in this space want to get their noses in and to 
get a chunk of that money. When they come in, they may or may not do a 
good job, but they are highly profit motivated. If you are interested 
in trying to facilitate them and to give them a money making 
opportunity, then you may well want to damage public schools in order 
to support their move to for-profits.
  This creates a fairly significant problem when you connect it to the 
next piece of Mrs. DeVos's application. That is conflict of interest. 
One of the basic elements that we are here to look at in our advice and 
consent process is conflict of interest. Will the nominee be able to do 
a fair job? Will she be looking at things fair and square or will she 
have conflicts of interest that impede the fair exercise of her 
judgment?
  One place that we need to look for conflict of interest is when we 
have nominees who have run political dark money operations. This is a 
new thing for us. Not too long ago we swore in a new President--
President Barack Obama. When we did, we had ethics rules, government 
ethics offices, filing requirements, and all of that in place. That was 
2008. Then came the Citizens United decision--one of the worst 
decisions that five Justices on the Supreme Court have ever made, and 
it opened up the floodgates of dark money.
  This nominee is a practitioner of the dark arts of dark money. We 
know nothing about what she has done, but the conflicts of interest 
ought to be pretty obvious. If you raised millions of dollars from 
people in your dark money operation, then there is an indebtedness 
there that somebody might think could be an appearance of impropriety 
or conflict.
  We should know so that evaluation can be made. Or if you spent dark 
money in support of certain things, we should know so that we can 
connect the dots and evaluate the linkages and see whether it is a 
conflict of interest.
  We wrote to Mrs. DeVos about this. The first letter was January 5, 
2017. We got an answer, and the answer was spectacularly incomplete and 
unhelpful. So we wrote a second letter on January 27. I wish to take a 
minute and read this letter because I think it explains our 
predicament.

       Elisabeth DeVos
       Trump-Pence Transition Team
       Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
       Washington, DC
       Dear Mrs. DeVos,
       Thank you for your response of January 17, 2017, to our 
     January 5, 2017 letter--

  Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the letter at the end of my remarks.

       Thank you for your response of January 17, 2017, to our 
     January 5, 2017 letter requesting additional information on 
     your vast political fundraising and spending network. Along 
     with various responses and objections to our request, you 
     produced a series of already public campaign finance reports 
     related to the American Federation for Children Action Fund, 
     a 527 organization, and its various State affiliates. For the 
     reasons that follow, we view your response as, while sizable, 
     nonresponsive.
       We requested you provide information about two 501(c)(4) 
     organizations with which you have been associated: the 
     American Federation for Children and the Great Lakes 
     Education Fund. You acknowledged your association with these 
     entities in your disclosures to the Office of Government 
     Ethics (OGE). You also acknowledged in your letter to us that 
     ``[e]ach organization with which [you] have been involved is 
     independent.'' It is not clear what you mean by 
     ``independent'' since you have already acknowledged your 
     association with these organizations. I hope you can 
     appreciate how both fundraising and spending of these 
     organizations (from whom? to whom? in what amounts? your 
     personal role?) might produce conflicts of interests in 
     potential decisions if you are confirmed to serve as 
     Secretary of the Department of Education.
       Our concerns are not hypothetical as known contributors to 
     your political organizations have had business before 
     Department of Education. For example:
       Vahan Gureghian: In 2010, Gureghian donated $100,000 to the 
     American Federation for Children Action Fund. Mr. Gureghian 
     founded and is the CEO of CSMI LLC, a Pennsylvania charter 
     school management company and helped found the Chester 
     Community Charter School. He has been a major donor in 
     promoting charter schools in Pennsylvania.

  I will interrupt reading the letter for a moment to point out how 
obvious it is that somebody involved in the charter school movement 
could very easily have business before the Department of Education. Who 
knows how much he gave? We know of about $100,000, but it could be a 
lot more. He knows. She knows, but the public won't know. When bids or 
competitions are up, that is simply not fair.
  On to the next one and back to the text of the letter:

       J.C. Huizenga: Between 2005 and 2007, Huizenga donated 
     $25,000 to All Children Matter, and in 2010 he donated 
     $30,000 to the American Federation for Children Action Fund. 
     Mr. Huizenga founded the National Heritage Academies, a for-
     profit charter network that has 80 schools in 9 States and 
     has received over $43 million in federal funding. According 
     to a 2012 review by the Michigan Department of Education of 
     the schools in the ``focus'' category, due to significant 
     gaps in achievement, more than half were managed by National 
     Heritage Academies. It has been reported that Mr. Huizenga 
     said that his involvement with charter schools was due to 
     realizing that ``privatizing public education was not only 
     practical but also desperately needed.''

  Again, to step back out from the letter, here is somebody who is in 
the for-profit charter school business, whose charter schools are more 
than half of the troubled charter schools reviewed by the Michigan 
Department of Education and who wants to privatize public education. He 
is linked with her through the dark money operation. We don't know 
anything about the dark money side.

       David L. Brennan: Brennan donated a total of $200,000 to 
     All Children Matter from 2004 to 2007, prior to AMC's wind 
     down due to campaign finance violations.

  This is a series of campaign violations, finance violations, that led 
to the $5 million fine that neither the entity nor Mrs. DeVos have ever 
paid.


[[Page S734]]


  

       In 2010, he donated $39,000 to the American Federation for 
     Children Action Fund. He is the founder of White Hat 
     Management LLC, a for-profit charter school management 
     company that operates 15 schools in three states with over 
     12,000 students. Since 2008, Whitehat and its affiliates have 
     received $3.6 million in federal funds including IDEA funds.

  How are we ever going to know if people like this--who are making 
big, dark money contributions into the dark money operation that she 
runs--will not be rewarded in a pay-to-play fashion with grants and 
favors and an advantage in competition at the Department of Education? 
You would ordinarily evaluate that by knowing that the conflict of 
interest existed. But because it is dark money, we will never know.
  They will know. She will know, but the public will never know. The 
Senate will never know. The press will never know.

       While you may not have a direct financial interest in the 
     for-profit education enterprises headed by those listed 
     above, your political fundraising relationship with them, and 
     perhaps others, could cause a reasonable person concern over 
     your impartiality in matters involving them.

  Let me step out of the letter again. Doesn't that make sense? If you 
were applying for a grant before the Department of Education and your 
competitor was somebody who had given $1 million to Mrs. DeVos's Action 
Fund, wouldn't you want to know that? Don't you think the public should 
know that? If you were to find out later that had taken place, and they 
were awarded the grant and you were not, wouldn't that rankle you a 
bit? Wouldn't that suggest to you that perhaps we are not being treated 
fairly because of that big contribution that was made? But we will 
never know. We are disabled from doing our constitutional job of 
reviewing these nominees for conflict of interest when it is dark money 
that is at stake.

       The OGE process does not capture conflicts that arise 
     through political activity. . . .

  This is the first transition of Presidents since the Citizens United 
decision. This is the first one; so there is no history. We have to do 
it now, but we are not--not for this nominee, not for other nominees. 
We are leaving a black hole of secrecy around this enormous conflict of 
interest potential.

       The OGE process does not capture conflicts that arise 
     through political activity so it is incumbent upon us to 
     assure the Senate record is complete as to such conflicts and 
     how they will be resolved.
       These are just the publically known examples of potential 
     conflicts. Our original request asked you for information to 
     assess potential conflicts with 501(c)(4) organizations that 
     are not required to publicly disclose donor information. 
     Accordingly, we reiterate our request that you provide:
       A list of all donors, their total donations, and 
     affiliations, who have contributed to the American Federation 
     for Children 501(c)(4), and the Great Lakes Fund 501(c)(4) 
     since their inception.
       A list of donations made by you, members of your family, 
     and foundations or organizations with which you are 
     affiliated, to other 501(c)(4) organizations over the past 
     five years.

  That seems like a perfectly reasonable request.

       According to the American Federation for Children's IRS 
     Form 990 filed for the year 2014, it spent nearly $1.1 
     million on political activities, including a $315,000 
     transfer to the American Federation for Children Action Fund, 
     Wisconsin IE Committee.

  I think most people here know how this works, but to make it clear 
for people listening, many political organizations require that the 
donors be disclosed. So if you want to engage in the dark money game 
and hide your political influence-seeking, what you do is you take your 
money and you give it to a 501(c)(4), a dark money operation. Then they 
in turn give it to the political action group. That is what happened 
here. $1.1 million into the American Federation for Children, $315,000 
transferred to the American Federation for Children Action Fund in 
Wisconsin. The only function that provides is to launder the identity 
of who the donor was. So that all you see is the money emerging from 
the dark money organization, with no transparency as to who put it in.

       Because donations to a 501(c)(4) are anonymous, they 
     effectively launder the identities of donors to the other 
     parts of the political apparatus. But you know, and the 
     donors know, and therein lies the potential for conflict of 
     interest. Additionally, you refused to disclose donations to 
     501(c)(4) organizations that you, your family and your 
     foundation have made. You explained, ``(t)he information 
     request requested has no bearing on the office to which I 
     have been nominated nor the duties of the Department of 
     Education.''

  That was her answer to the first letter. Our letter here continues:

       Your donations to 501(c)(4) organizations are indeed 
     relevant to your nomination, just as your donations to 
     political candidates, parties and causes are. One obvious 
     instance would be where groups to which you have made 
     political contributions are before the Department as 
     advocates or grant seekers. Again, you know and the donors 
     know, and therein lies the potential for conflict of 
     interest. Senators have a Constitutional duty to provide 
     advice and consent on Presidential nominees, and 
     understanding the scope and nature of potential conflicts of 
     interest is at the heart of that duty.

  I do hope that we can agree on that in this Body: That part of our 
advice and consent role is to understand the potential for conflicts of 
interest. If we can't agree on that, then we have a real problem here, 
because that is the purpose or at least one purpose of what we do.

       Your role in raising and distributing ``dark money'' 
     clearly raises the possibility of such conflicts. As a 
     result, we renew our request for information related to your 
     501(c)(4) organizations as outlined above.
       Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this 
     request. We look forward to your additional information and 
     disclosures and timely and responsive answers.

  Well, as of today, what we have is no answer at all--no answer at 
all. This is a recurring problem here. This business of dark money not 
being caught by the rather obsolete, in that respect, government ethics 
reporting conventions that have been carried forward from the Obama 
transition before all of this became a problem doesn't just apply to 
Mrs. DeVos.
  Secretary of State Tillerson, as CEO of ExxonMobil, ran a massive 
dark money operation. ExxonMobil has money all over front groups that 
deny climate change, all over political groups to try to discourage 
action on climate change, and a lot of it is dark money. There has been 
reporting that traces it back to Exxon, but we never know how much 
because it is dark money, and Mr. Tillerson hasn't told us one thing 
about it in his hearing.
  We will be considering shortly the nomination of Scott Pruitt as the 
EPA Administrator. Scott Pruitt ran a dark money operation as the 
attorney general of Oklahoma. Why would an attorney general want to run 
a dark money operation in the first place? That is a whole separate 
question--but he did. It was called the Rule of Law Defense Fund, and 
what it did was it took in money, prevented the donors from having 
their identities revealed, and then funneled the money publicly to the 
Republican Attorneys General Association. It was an identity laundering 
machine for the Republican Attorneys General Association for big donors 
who didn't want anybody to know who the source was of the money that 
was being funneled into the Republican Attorneys General Association. 
That is fine, I guess. I would like to be rid of all of it. We should 
pass the DISCLOSE Act and clean this mess up. But for sure, when 
somebody who has run a dark money operation comes before the Senate 
seeking to be nominated to a Cabinet office, we hold a constitutional 
duty to protect that office from improper conflicts of interest. 
Surely, then, their role in the dark money operation should be 
disclosed.
  It only makes sense. But, no, like Mrs. DeVos, absolute stonewall on 
any information related to the Rule of Law Defense Fund and Mr. 
Pruitt's dark money operation, a black hole of secrecy and enormous 
opportunity for conflict, because obviously, given his background and 
given where the rest of his fundraising went, you can draw a reasonable 
conclusion about where the dark money came from: Devon Energy, 
ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute, Murray Coal--the usual 
suspects. That is where a lot of his other money came from. You have to 
believe it went here. But do we know that? No. He could have taken $1 
million from one of those groups and then, as EPA Administrator, be 
ruling on an application of theirs and we would not know. Please don't 
anyone tell me that is not a potential conflict of interest. I mean, we 
can deal with alternate facts around here, but that is just crazy.
  We don't know about Mrs. DeVos's dark money. We don't know about 
Tillerson's dark money. We don't know about Pruitt's dark money. It is 
as if

[[Page S735]]

there has been an understanding--some secret handshake around here--
that nobody will allow dark money information into the nomination 
process. That is just wrong. That is just wrong. It infects this 
nomination of Mrs. DeVos. We have to get answers to these questions.
  Let me move on to one other point: student college debt. I had a 
meeting recently. I think all of us had the same experience. From our 
home States, groups come to visit us and to get our time and to bring 
our attention to problems that concern them. I think we all get visits 
from the same groups. We get visits from our community bankers from our 
home States. We get visits from our credit unions in our home States. 
We get visits from the automobile dealers in our home States. We get 
visits from the insurance brokers in our home States. We get visits 
from the Realtors in our home States.
  When the Realtors of Rhode Island came in to visit me the last time, 
they raised a new issue that I had not heard before from them. The 
issue that they raised was this: You know, we are starting to have a 
real problem financing houses for the next generation of home buyers, 
the young home buyers who are coming into the market and who would 
ordinarily be buying their starter homes. The problem we are finding 
with them is that they are so loaded up with college debt that we can't 
finance the purchase of a home for them.
  That is how enormous the student loan debt problem is in this 
country. It is now preventing so many young people from buying a home 
that the Realtors have noticed and put it on their problem list as 
something for us to take action on.
  If the Realtors have noticed this, I don't think it is asking too 
much for a nominee for Secretary of Education to have noticed this. If, 
in fact, she has noticed this, I don't think it is asking too much for 
her to have thoughts and a plan, because we are well over $1 trillion 
in debt for these kids. I think it is about $1.3 trillion now. It has 
been a known problem for some time. Over and over again, Democrats have 
tried to find and propose solutions here in the Senate. Over and over 
again, we have been shot down. But it remains a very considerable 
issue.
  You would think that a new Secretary of Education coming in would 
want to hit the ground running on this issue. She would have something 
she wanted to get done to solve it. There would be a plan or an 
outline. We may not agree with it, it may be something that we have to 
work together to find a way to get it to the floor, but at least there 
would be a starting point. All I got was, well, I would be interested 
in your views on that issue. How is it possible that with over $1 
trillion in student debt piled up, with the student debt problem so 
severe that even Realtors have put it on their to-do list to get 
something done about it, that a nominee for the Secretary of Education 
has nothing? Pockets out. Nothing to get started on this problem. Is 
she ever going to take an interest? I don't know.
  But it would seem to me, particularly when you look at where we are 
in the HELP Committee--our ranking member, Senator Murray, is here. 
Senator Murray and Chairman Alexander helped lead us together through 
the ESSA, the reform of No Child Left Behind, the Every Student 
Succeeds Act. It passed roaring through the Senate. The House even 
picked it up and took it. It came out of committee unanimously. States 
are still working on implementation of it because it freed them up to 
do a lot more things, and so they have to go through the process of 
deciding how they are going to take advantage of its new freedoms. So 
with respect to elementary and secondary education, we are actually in 
pretty good shape. All we have to do is implement the bipartisan 
popular law that we passed. So where is the attention going to be? 
Well, what we have not passed is the Higher Education Reform Act.
  So if you know at all that has been going on in education in the 
Congress, which is not asking too much of a Secretary of Education 
nominee, you know that we have just implemented a major reform of 
elementary and secondary education, that our next order of business is 
higher education, and that an elemental part of that is going to be 
college debt.
  So the fact that this nominee has nothing on that issue and is in the 
traditional deer-in-the-headlights-nominee mode of, well, I look 
forward to working with you on that Senator. Oh, yes, I understand that 
is a serious problem, Senator, but actually I don't have any ideas; I 
don't have any plans; I don't have any strategy; I have nothing. Let's 
just work together on it. That is not very convincing to me.
  I see the Senator from New Jersey here. The night is going on, so I 
will yield the floor to him, but I will close by saying that this 
recurring question about nominees who are involved in dark money 
operations and then refuse to disclose anything about their dark money 
operations so that it remains a black hole of secrecy and potential 
conflict of interest is wrong. It is just wrong.
  I know there are forces in this building that love the dark money, 
and there are huge special interests behind the dark money. There are a 
lot of people who benefit from the dark money who don't want any light 
on it ever. But once a nominee has had their name put in for a Cabinet 
position of the Government of the United States, by God, they ought to 
disclose their dark money connections because otherwise it is an avenue 
toward conflict of interest. Where there is conflict of interest, there 
comes scandal. It is our job to head that off by getting the 
information before the public so everybody can evaluate it, and we have 
been knee-capped in that effort by an absolutely positive shutdown from 
the other side of the aisle on any information about any dark money 
from any nominee.
  They don't have to be nominees. If they don't want to cough up their 
dark money information, they can turn the papers back in and tell 
President Trump: Find someone else. I would rather keep my secrets.
  But you should not keep your secrets and get the job.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 January 27, 2017.
     Elisabeth DeVos,
     Trump-Pence Transition Team,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mrs. DeVos, Thank you for your response of January 17, 
     2017, to our January 5, 2017 letter requesting additional 
     information on your vast political fundraising and spending 
     network. Along with various responses and objections to our 
     request, you produced a series of already public campaign 
     finance reports related to the American Federation for 
     Children Action Fund, a 527 organization, and its various 
     state affiliates. For the reasons that follow, we view your 
     response as, while sizeable, non-responsive.
       We requested you provide information about two 501(c)(4) 
     organizations with which you have been associated: the 
     American Federation for Children and the Great Lakes 
     Education Fund. You acknowledged your association with these 
     entities in your disclosures to the Office of Government 
     Ethics (OGE). You also acknowledged in your letter to us that 
     ``[e]ach organization with which [you] have been involved is 
     independent.'' It is not clear what you mean by 
     ``independent'' since you have already acknowledged your 
     association with these organizations. I hope you can 
     appreciate how both fundraising and spending of these 
     organizations (from whom? to whom? in what amounts? your 
     personal role?) might produce conflicts of interest in 
     potential decisions before you if you are confirmed to serve 
     as Secretary of the Department of Education.
       Our concerns are not hypothetical as known contributors to 
     your political organizations have had business before 
     Department of Education. For example:
       Vahan Gureghian: In 2010, Gureghian donated $100,000 to the 
     American Federation for Children Action Fund. Mr. Gureghian 
     founded and is the CEO of CSMI LLC, a Pennsylvania charter 
     school management company and helped found the Chester 
     Community Charter School. (he has been a major donor in 
     promoting charter schools in Pennsylvania.
       J.C. Huizenga: Between 2005 and 2007, Huizenga donated 
     $25,000 to All Children Matter, and in 2010 he donated 
     $30,000 to the American Federation for Children Action Fund. 
     Mr. Huizenga founded the National Heritage Academies, a for-
     profit charter network that has 80 schools in 9 states and 
     has received over $43 million in federal funding. According 
     to a 2012 review by the Michigan Department of Education, of 
     the schools in the ``focus'' category, due to significant 
     gaps in achievement, more than half were managed by National 
     Heritage Academies. It has been reported that Mr. Huizenga 
     said that his involvement with charter schools was due to 
     realizing that ``privatizing public education was not only 
     practical but also desperately needed.''
       David L. Brennan: Brennan donated a total of $200,000 to 
     All Children Matter, from 2004

[[Page S736]]

     to 2007, prior to AMC's wind down due to campaign finance 
     violations. In 2010, he donated $39,000 to the American 
     Federation for Children Action Fund. He is the founder of 
     White Hat Management LLC, a for-profit charter school 
     management company that operates 15 schools in three states 
     with over 12,000 students. Since 2008, White Hat and its 
     affiliates have received $3.6 million in federal funds 
     including IDEA funds.
       While you may not have a direct financial interest in the 
     for-profit education enterprises headed by those listed 
     above, your political fundraising relationship with them, and 
     perhaps others, could cause a reasonable person concern over 
     your impartiality in matters involving them. The OGE process 
     does not, capture conflicts that arise through political 
     activity so it is incumbent upon us to assure the Senate 
     record is complete as to such conflicts and how they will be 
     resolved.
       These are just the publicly known examples of potential 
     conflicts. Our original request asked you for information to 
     assess potential conflicts with 501(c)(4) organizations that 
     are not required to publicly disclose donor information. 
     Accordingly, we reiterate our request that you provide:
       A list of all donors, their total donations, and 
     affiliations, who have contributed to the American Federation 
     for Children 501(c)(4) and the Great Lakes Education Fund 
     501(c)(4) since their inception.
       A list of donations made by you, members of your family, 
     and foundations or organizations with which you are 
     affiliated, to other 501(c)(4) organizations over the past 
     five years.
       According to the American Federation for Children's IRS 
     Form 990 filed for the year 2014, it spent nearly $1.1 
     million on political activities, including a $315,000 
     transfer to the American Federation for Children Action 
     Fund--Wisconsin IE Committee. Because donations to a 
     501(c)(4) are anonymous, they effectively launder the 
     identities of donors to the other parts of your political 
     apparatus. But you know, and the donors know, and therein 
     lies the potential for conflict of interest.
       Additionally, you refused to disclose donations to 
     501(c)(4) organizations that you, your family, and your 
     foundation have made. You explained, ``[t]he information 
     requested has no bearing on the office to which I have been 
     nominated nor the duties of the Department of Education.'' 
     Your donations to 501(c)(4) organizations are indeed relevant 
     to your nomination, just as your donations to political 
     candidates, parties, and causes are. One obvious instance 
     would be where groups to which you have made political 
     contributions are before the Department as advocates or grant 
     seekers. Again, you know, and the donors know, and therein 
     lies the potential for conflict of interest. Senators have a 
     Constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on 
     presidential nominees, and understanding the scope and nature 
     of potential conflicts of interest is at the heart of that 
     duty. Your role in raising and distributing ``dark money'' 
     clearly raises the possibility of such conflicts. As a 
     result, we renew our request for information related to your 
     501(c)(4) organizations as outlined above.
       Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this 
     request. We look forward to your additional information and 
     disclosures and timely and responsive answers.
           Sincerely,
     Sheldon Whitehouse.
     Robert P. Casey, Jr.
     Tammy Baldwin.
     Bernard Sanders.
     Al Franken.
     Elizabeth Warren.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I know the night is going on. I just want 
to take a moment to express my appreciation to all the staff members 
and Senators who remain here on the floor. A lot of folks who work 
here, from the gentleman typing very quickly, all the way to a lot of 
the folks working, I just want to express my gratitude for the long 
night, particularly to the pages. It is their second week here, and 
they suddenly are being forced to grapple with not just school but the 
long nights of the Senate. I really do respect them and am grateful for 
their, how should I say, endurance tonight as well.
  I rise today, as many of my colleagues have, to speak to the 
nomination of Betsy DeVos and to speak specifically in opposition to 
her nomination to serve as Secretary of Education. I have listened to 
as many of my colleagues' words as I can. I want to say that 
particularly those on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension 
Committee have and will and continue to expand upon many of the 
concerning elements of Mrs. DeVos's record, concerns that I share about 
her lack of support for critical accountability measures, her lack of 
familiarity with many of the basic financial aid policies and programs 
which are so essential for people to have access to higher education, 
her inability to say that guns should not be in school, and her seeming 
lack of understanding of many of the fundamental yet critical education 
policy perspectives that I think are necessary for a job of this 
magnitude.
  I know there has been much said and there will be many more issues 
brought up of concern to many of the Democrats who spoke tonight, but 
tonight I would like to focus on an area that is very personal to me 
and also very personal to millions of Americans, that is essential to 
this role but one that may not be immediately understood when you talk 
about a Secretary of Education, but it is absolutely critical to that 
Department. In fact, I think it is one of the more critical roles of 
that Department when it comes to fulfilling the ideals of our Nation.
  Within the Department of Education is the Office for Civil Rights. 
That office is profoundly important, but it is one that many people 
don't have a full understanding of. What I would like to do right now 
is highlight four areas in which the Office for Civil Rights functions 
and also talk as it relates to my concerns about and my opposition to 
Betsy DeVos to serve as Secretary of Education.
  First, I would like to talk about what is at stake for children with 
disabilities and their families and their parents. About 13 to 14 
percent of our American school-age children--about 6.5 million kids and 
young adults in America--are students with a disability.
  Here in the United States, I am so proud that we have a deep belief 
and, in fact, our laws, passed by people of both Houses, both parties, 
dictate that all children be treated with dignity and respect and that 
they will get the educational opportunities all children deserve. 
Indeed, our laws reflect that, but the spirit of America is to see that 
in this Nation all of our children have unique gifts, all of our 
children have beauty, and we as a nation collectively believe they all 
deserve a strong pathway to the fundamental American ideal. They 
deserve pathways to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that 
when we say ``justice for all,'' we really do mean all children.
  But unfortunately, as the work of the Department of Education's 
Office for Civil Rights demonstrates, the Federal Government is often 
at odds with some school districts that do not properly enforce 
protections granted to students with disabilities under the Federal 
law, again passed by both Houses, passed by both parties. Within our 
country, thousands of parents do not believe their children are 
receiving justice in their local school systems for their children with 
disabilities. They reach out to the Federal Government for help, for 
relief, for that justice.
  Take the example of one child, the case of a 9-year-old child in 
California whose name is withheld for privacy. This child--and let's 
call her Jane--is a student like so many others. She has the same 
dreams and aspirations, has hopes, has promise, and has untapped, 
unlimited potential.
  At the age of 9, this child, ``Jane,'' had been physically restrained 
in her school more than 92 times during an 11-month period by her 
school because of her disability. As a part of that restraint, she had 
been held facedown for a total of 2,200 minutes.
  The Office for Civil Rights at the Federal level, the Federal 
Government, it took them to investigate this case, and they found that 
the district was in violation of the Federal law and required the 
school district to stop using these kinds of restraints on students and 
to actually take the time and energy to invest the resources in 
training the staff on alternative intervention methods, methods that 
recognize the dignity of that child and show that we have the potential 
and power to elevate that child, not to so savagely restrain them.
  This was not only unconscionable treatment that the Federal 
Government intervened in, but clearly it was illegal within the bounds 
of Federal law. This is not the way that anyone here, anyone in this 
body with a child with a disability, any of us would want our children 
to be treated.
  If I had a child, I know it is not the way I would want them treated. 
Frankly, when it comes to the children of America, they are our 
children. Whether Republican or Democrat, we know that our children, 
our kids, American children--all children, frankly--deserve better than 
this kind of physical abuse. It is for these kinds of reasons

[[Page S737]]

that I believe we need to have an aggressive Office for Civil Rights 
because the story of Jane, of a 9-year-old, is not an anomaly. It is 
not something that is rare.
  Unfortunately, as we are seeing, there are many violations of Federal 
law that go on when it comes to our children with disabilities. There 
is tremendous evidence that this kind of abuse still goes on in our 
country, and there needs to be an ultimate authority that can 
investigate this abuse and, if necessary, hold those people accountable 
who are the abusers. And the additional step that the Office for Civil 
Rights does is it gives advisement, gives instruction on how to make 
sure the abuse does not happen in the future.
  We need our Office for Civil Rights to work with school districts to 
establish those policies and procedures to prevent that abuse.
  When Mrs. DeVos, during her testimony, was given the opportunity to 
speak to the millions of parents who have real, legitimate concerns 
about their children with disabilities and the treatment they receive 
in school--she was given the opportunity to speak to the vital role of 
the Federal Government in protecting our children and affirming those 
rights, about the role of the Office for Civil Rights, and instead of 
taking that opportunity, instead of seizing the moment to talk about 
what she would be doing to lead, she actually denied a role for the 
Federal Government. When asked about protecting students with 
disabilities, she simply said: ``It should be left up to the States.''
  Well, I will tell you right now, for that 9-year-old child physically 
restrained more than 92 times, held facedown for hours, the Federal 
Government clearly had an important role to play for that mom, for that 
family, for that child in making sure this kind of atrocity doesn't 
happen and will not happen for more children.
  Secondly, I would like to talk about what is at stake with the Office 
for Civil Rights as it relates to children who are different, whether 
that be the color of their skin, whether they wear a hijab to school as 
an expression of their faith or if they are a minority or, again, a 
child with a disability.
  For example, I have spoken much as a Senator about the school-to-
prison pipeline and often how certain categories of children experience 
different types of discipline for the same act in school just because 
of how they look.
  School disciplinary policies, we know, play a big role in a child's 
success, and those disciplinary policies are clearly treating different 
children in different ways. There will be different outcomes for those 
categories of kids.
  We know that children who have out-of-school suspensions often 
graduate at significantly lower rates, have significantly higher run-
ins with the law. I am one who believes we cannot allow discrimination 
to happen in that manner in our school.
  These are the facts. This is the data. Take, for example, the fact 
that Black students are 3.8 times more likely than their White peers to 
receive one or more out-of-school suspensions, while students with 
disabilities actually are twice as likely as those without to receive 
one or more out-of-school suspensions.

  Let me give you the specific case of Tunette Powell, who wrote about 
her son who is Black. His name is Joah. He was suspended five times in 
2014. He was 3 years old.
  She said: ``One after another, White mothers confessed the trouble 
their children had gotten into. Some of the behavior was similar to 
JJ's,'' her son's. ``Some was much worse. Most startling'' to her was 
that ``none of their children had been suspended.''
  She continues to write. ``After that party,'' where she had heard 
this from other White parents, ``I read a study reflecting everything I 
was living. Black children represent 18 percent of preschool enrollment 
but make up 48 percent of preschool children receiving more than one 
out-of-school suspension, according to the study released by the 
Education Department's Office for Civil Rights in March,'' she writes.
  One of the critical things about the Office for Civil Rights is that 
they have been proactively collecting data about differences in 
treatment in our schools.
  Now there are many people who actively assert that the role of the 
Office for Civil Rights has grown too large, that they are poking 
around in local matters too much, that even collecting such data, as 
was relied on by this mother, is an intrusion into States' rights. I 
believe, when it comes to civil rights, when it comes to religious 
freedom and the treatment of our children, I do not believe that the 
Office for Civil Rights has grown too large. I believe they are 
offering critical transparency into the workings of our schools; that 
they are collecting data that parents and policymakers and civil rights 
groups can use to see who is being left behind, who might be facing 
discrimination, who is not receiving justice.
  What do we have to be afraid of even on just the collection of data 
to allow ourselves to have that transparency, to create an environment 
of accountability?
  I worry that if this is not a priority for the next Secretary of 
Education, then closing the achievement gap, shutting down the school-
to-prison pipeline, and empowering all children to have an equal 
opportunity to learn will be undermined.
  These are real problems in our country, and they aren't just going to 
go away. The Federal Government, especially when they insist upon data 
transparency, is an active partner in helping us to receive the justice 
that we deserve and need and pledge allegiance to as a country.
  I had hoped during the hearings of Mrs. DeVos that I would hear more; 
that even if I had the opportunity to talk to the nominee myself, I 
would have asked for more information around these issues, but I didn't 
have that opportunity, and in the very rushed hearing, the issue wasn't 
raised.
  I believe, though, that based on the testimony that was given, that 
the nominee may not see this as a vital function of the Office for 
Civil Rights and, in fact, may shrink that office and the ongoing 
proactive investigations that we see right now into such matters.
  We know that the school-to-prison pipeline, particularly for young 
people of color, isn't just real; it is actually pervasive. But during 
Mrs. DeVos's confirmation hearing, when asked about the Office for 
Civil Rights within the Department of Education that is responsible for 
rectifying such unjust situations, she refused to comment. She refused 
to comment. She refused to commit herself even to directing the Office 
for Civil Rights to investigate such civil rights violations. I don't 
understand why it is difficult to even commit the Department to 
continuing such investigations, but that commitment was denied.
  I want to next talk about the serious problem we have in America with 
sexual assault and sexual violence in schools and on college campuses. 
Mr. President, 1 in 5 women and 1 in 16 men are sexually assaulted in 
their college years, but only 1 percent of assailants on college 
campuses are arrested, charged, or convicted.
  We still know that too many people on college campuses who have been 
sexually assaulted, who are survivors, are routinely denied justice and 
are forced to even live or even go to class with their attackers.
  The Office for Civil Rights has risen to this challenge and this 
crisis. They have opened investigations in over 200 schools in America. 
There is a crisis of campus sexual assault in America, and now the 
Office for Civil Rights is expanding their work. They have stepped up 
to that challenge. In addition to that, they have issued guidance to 
all college campuses on preventing and combating sexual assault.
  Mrs. DeVos, again, during her testimony--many of us were hoping she 
would rise to the occasion, that she would speak to this issue. She was 
given a chance, given a chance not just to speak to the issue but to 
talk to the Federal role in meeting this crisis, to acknowledge that 
this is an issue our Nation must grapple with and must end, but she did 
not speak to the concerns of parents. She did not speak to the concerns 
of survivors. She did not speak to America about the urgent need for 
all of us to be engaged in dealing with the crisis for which there has 
been silence for too long.
  More than this, she did not speak to the role of the Office for Civil 
Rights, to the expanding role they have been taking, to the expanding 
investigations on college campuses all across the country, giving no 
confidence to me or

[[Page S738]]

to others that this will be a role that will continue--in fact, a role 
that I believe should be expanded.
  Again, even when she was specifically asked about upholding guidance 
within the Department of Education on combating and preventing sexual 
assault--not asked to commit on the investigations, not asked to commit 
to expanding the efforts but just asked about upholding the guidance 
within the Department of Education on combating and preventing sexual 
assault, she refused to commit to maintaining that guidance.
  I would like to speak to another area. Before I do, I do believe in 
this idea of transparency that my previous colleague talked about when 
it comes to donations. Some of the charities that have received 
donations from Mrs. DeVos have a history of fighting against efforts to 
combat sexual assault, and some of these organizations worked to make 
it more difficult for sexual assault victims to seek justice.
  That brings me to an area in which I have a deep level of concern. I 
hope Mrs. DeVos will take the opportunity to set the record straight 
because much has been written even before the hearings involving an 
area where there is a clear crisis in our country. It is the crisis 
involving the safety and security of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 
transgender youth in America.
  Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth face a stunning level 
of discrimination inside and outside of schools starting at a very 
young age. We know that LGBT youth are two times more likely than their 
heterosexual peers to be physically assaulted in schools. LGBT youth 
are four times more likely to attempt suicide. According to youth risk 
behavior surveys, 34 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender 
students were assaulted on school property. More than one-third of LGBT 
school students were bullied on school property, and 13 percent of 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students did not go to school 
because of concerns for their safety. We know in America that this kind 
of harassment has no place in our classrooms, no place in our schools, 
and it has no place anywhere in our country, but it is all too common 
and all too often unaddressed.
  I would like to talk about a parent. Her name is Wendy Walsh. The 
harassment against Wendy's son Seth began for him in the fourth grade 
when his classmates suspected he was gay. By the time he reached the 
seventh grade, the bullying, the verbal and physical abuse in person 
and online was so bad that he was afraid to walk home from school. This 
child lived in terror of just going to class. After one bullying 
incident in a local park, his mom says that 13-year-old Seth came home 
from school. She talked to him. He asked to borrow a pen from his mom. 
That conversation will be the last time she would see her son alive. 
The next time Wendy saw her son Seth, he had hanged himself on a tree 
in their backyard.
  After Seth's death, Wendy, experiencing a level of grief and agony I 
cannot imagine, decided to file a complaint with the Department of 
Education Office for Civil Rights. When the Office for Civil Rights 
came in and investigated, they found that Seth's school district was in 
violation of several Federal laws, that they failed to intervene and 
stop the bullying and harassment and torment that this child endured 
from a precious age until his death, that their actions could have 
potentially prevented the death of one of our children, an American 
child, a child of beauty and of worth and of dignity and protection.
  Wendy went to the Federal Government to the Office for Civil Rights, 
and they took her concerns seriously. They aggressively investigated. 
Because of their investigation and because of Wendy's courage in her 
time of grief, the school district, in violation of Federal law, was 
required to take steps--though not there to prevent her child's death--
they were required to take steps to prevent the kind of harassment, 
tormenting, and bullying from happening to other students. I am not 
sure if any of that is solace to a mother who lost her child. I am not 
sure if it gave her comfort, but I am hopeful that with an active 
Office for Civil Rights at the Federal Department of Education, at a 
time where more than 10 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth are 
missing school because of that kind of fear, when one-third are 
reporting bullying and harassing in person or online, at this level of 
unconscionable treatment for any child, there is a role for the Federal 
Government to protect our children. I believe if we take these matters 
seriously that we can insure that this kind of bullying and harassment 
will come to an end in America. It is unacceptable in a country this 
great. There are laws against this, and there are folks who have an 
obligation to enforce those laws; that is, the Office of Civil Rights.
  I believe things will get better, but they will not get better 
automatically because we hope for them, because we pray for them; they 
will get better because we are a country that loves our children, and 
love is not a being verb. It demands action. We see time and time again 
that children aren't seeing the kind of action where they are, and 
thank God right now there is a place for parents to go. They can appeal 
to the Federal Government. The Department of Education, the Office for 
Civil Rights, has to be led by someone who takes this seriously, who 
sees the calls for justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
youth as valid, that sees the crisis, that sees the problem.
  It was widely reported, when Mrs. DeVos's nomination was made--widely 
reported--that her family had given support, significant support, and 
that she herself gave significant support to discriminatory extremists, 
dangerous and hateful groups that promote ideas that say a child who is 
gay is somehow lesser than a child that is not; groups that have 
supported things like conversion therapy, something that has been 
resoundingly condemned--dangerous ideas that are hurtful to children. 
With all of that, with all the articles that have been written, this 
was a chance for Mrs. DeVos to sit before the American public knowing 
that these concerns are out there, and it is understandable, even if 
she doesn't hold them, it is understandable that this was a moment for 
her to allay the fears of the thousands and thousands of children who 
are being isolated and hurt by bullies, the people who are assaulting 
their dignity--these children have suicide rates that are 
unconscionably high--for the parents mourning their kids, with all that 
swirl, the hearing was her chance to set the record straight to say: I 
will uphold the value and dignity of these children, but more than 
that, I recognize there is a crisis in our country, and I will work 
with the Office for Civil Rights to do something to address this evil 
in our country. We have so many kids being hurt and harmed. This was 
her chance to go beyond just denying that she believed in conversion 
therapy, to go beyond just words in asserting that she values equality. 
This was her chance. It should have been understood that because of the 
record and the charitable donations that there was a degree of 
suspicion; that there was an understandable degree of legitimate fear 
that she would not continue the courageous work of the Office for Civil 
Rights in combating discrimination, harassment, and physical abuse of 
children across our country. She had the opportunity.
  Given the fears and concerns that have been expressed, I would have 
hoped she would have spoken directly to the work of the Office for 
Civil Rights to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teens 
who are factually experiencing some of the highest levels of hate 
crimes and violence and bullying of any children in America; that she 
would have made some affirmation that she would be a champion for their 
equality, for their dignity, and the Office for Civil Rights would 
continue its needed work, but she didn't.
  I hoped she would stand up and say: We have violence on our college 
campuses; that right now silence is allowing insidious realities to 
exist. We have a problem with reporting rates. We have a problem with 
reports being made and not being taken seriously; that she could have 
used that as an opportunity to speak against what is happening to an 
unconscionable level of young women on college campuses--something that 
we would never want to have happen to any of our daughters; to make a 
pledge that the Office for Civil Rights would not just continue campus 
advisories but would fight to hold those college campuses accountable, 
but she didn't.
  For students and families across the country, this may not be a 
celebrated

[[Page S739]]

part. We may not all know in America that the Department of Education 
has an Office of Civil Rights, but for so many families with children 
on college campuses and preschools, grade schools, high schools, the 
Office for Civil Rights has been the difference--the difference makers 
between injustice and justice, the difference makers between violence 
and security, the difference makers between who we say we are as a 
nation, liberty and justice for all, and experiencing a terrible, awful 
lie.
  I feel compelled to speak out on the vital importance of the 
Education Secretary, regardless of party, regardless of background. I 
feel a personal responsibility to assure that if I cast my vote as a 
Senator, that whoever takes that office will be tireless in the defense 
of all the rights, privileges, and liberties of our students because I 
personally stand here today because of the role of the Federal 
Government in enforcing civil rights laws. I stand here today because 
of the courageous Federal laws that were put in place--bipartisanship, 
Republicans and Democrats, great battles on this floor for civil rights 
and disability rights, for title IX protections for women. I am a 
product of these kinds of fights over the Federal role when it comes to 
civil rights. I stand here today because of our collective history. I 
stand here today because of our dramatic history. I believe in States' 
rights. It is enshrined in our Constitution, but I cannot ignore the 
role of the Federal Government. Brown v. Board of Education is perhaps 
one of the most famous Supreme Court cases affirming the Federal role.

  I hung a picture in the front of my office. I come out of my office 
into where my assistant sits, and the first thing I see on the wall in 
front of me is a Norman Rockwell painting. There is this young girl in 
that painting, and she is striding proudly to school, and behind her 
are racial epithets, a tomato smashed against that wall. She is a 
little girl--God, her courage--named Ruby Bridges. There are these 
White men surrounding her walking just as tall, and they are escorting 
that girl to school. There is clearly hate swirling around. You can 
look at that picture, and you can feel it. But I don't care what your 
background or religion is, you look at Norman Rockwell's painting--as I 
make sure I do every day as I leave my office as a U.S. Senator and I 
see that picture--and I am reminded that sometimes when there is hate, 
sometimes when there is violence, sometimes the State doesn't get the 
job done. Sometimes, the most vulnerable child needs a little help--not 
just from a loving teacher or a loving parent but from a government 
that stands behind her and says: You matter.
  I can't stand here today without recognizing that this is my history, 
that this is your history, that it is all of our history, and that our 
Federal Government has a role to play. I drink deeply from the wells of 
the freedom and the struggles and the sacrifice. I reap the harvest 
from Ruby Bridges and her courage.
  Our country has come so far. There is so much love, so much more 
recognition of the dignity of all children. But, come on, we are not 
there yet. Children are often harassed because they wear a head scarf. 
I recently heard about a Sikh child wearing a turban who was still 
harassed; a mother concerned that her kid, no worse than another but 
seems to get suspended more for the same behavior. As to children with 
disabilities, parents are still concerned that even though we have 
affirmed their rights and dignities in law, those laws aren't being 
carried out like they should.
  God, there are young women on a college campus today who rightfully 
question whether their campus is committed to eradicating sexual 
violence.
  With all of these things going on, we have to have champions here. We 
have to have people who understand that public education is a right for 
everyone. Some of the most profound battles in our country have been 
fought to get equal access for children to school, so that they can 
stride toward that school door knowing that they will get a quality 
education, free from bullying, free from harassment, free from the 
binds of hatred or discrimination that might hold them back in their 
lives.
  Now, I have faith in who we are as a Nation. I know we are a loving 
country and a good country, but we haven't got it perfect yet. So I 
stand here today in opposition to this nomination because I believe we 
need a champion. I wish I had a chance to meet with the nominee. I wish 
the hearings had been longer. I have never seen them so rushed. But 
there is too much at stake right now. There are too many problems that 
still exist.
  Sadly, there still is a need for an Office of Civil Rights in the 
Department of Education that is aggressive when it comes to the defense 
of freedom and our rights. I did not hear such a commitment from this 
nominee. There are millions of parents who didn't hear her speak to the 
concerns they have about their gay child, the concerns they have about 
their child with a disability, their concerns about their children 
going off to college. We did not hear that commitment. In fact, what we 
heard was a belief that States can figure it out. There was a failure 
to commit to even the most basic continuance of the Office of Civil 
Rights.
  I am glad I hung that picture in front of my office. I may not be 
able to get what I consider an open hearing and answers to these 
questions because I walk by Ruby Bridges. I feel I owe her a duty to 
not vote for someone who has been silent on the issues that are so 
critical to this country being who we say we are.
  There is a child, I think, who wonders right now. Somewhere in 
America, that child is wondering if this country will prove itself true 
to them. They are probably enduring some things I never had to endure. 
They are probably worried about their safety. They are probably being 
put in a situation where they are questioning their worth. They 
probably feel alone and isolated. My prayer is that this child knows 
that, even though it isn't perfect and it won't be easy, that child 
somehow knows that they are not alone, that there will be people 
fighting for them. I was taught, in the words of a great poet, that 
there is a dream in this land with its back against the wall; to save 
the dream for one, we must save it for all.
  May the Office of Civil Rights in the years to come remain vigilant, 
remain strong, and remain expansive in their efforts. I have no 
confidence it will do so under this person and, therefore, I oppose 
this nomination. Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New 
Jersey, who has given us such a compelling reason to remind all of us 
why we are here at almost midnight and why we all intend to keep 
talking and keep working and keep trying to convince one more Senator 
to say no to this nominee. He reminds us of the basic principle in this 
country that our forefathers dreamed of and that they put into our 
Constitution and that we have fought for, which is that every child 
should have dignity and every child should have a public education. 
That is why it is so important that we have someone who leads this 
agency who shares that conviction. I really want to thank Senator 
Booker for his tremendous words tonight.
  As the ranking member on this committee, who has been here throughout 
the Friday debate and through the 12 hours of debate we have had 
tonight and we will continue to have up until the vote tomorrow, I have 
had the opportunity to hear many Senators speak passionately. Senator 
Tester was here on Friday. He is from a very rural State, and he was 
speaking about how important it is to not have funds robbed away from 
the public education systems in those small little school districts to 
go to students with vouchers for private schools that don't exist in 
those rural communities. He talked about the importance of our public 
schools and our public school institutions in a slightly different way 
than the Senator from New Jersey did. He talked about how, when his 
grandparents settled in Montana, instead of being ranchers like those 
before them, they were wheat farmers. There were cattlemen and wheat 
farmers who were fighting and at odds with each other in the community, 
and where they came together was in their schools, because both 
cattlemen's kids and ranchers' kids were in the same school, and they 
played basketball together, and it healed the wounds of that community.

[[Page S740]]

  The Senator from New Jersey just talked about the Office of Civil 
Rights and why it is so important--that no matter what we look like or 
what this country stands for, this country says you have a right to an 
education. It is in our public schools where kids from all strata and 
all economic lives, with different backgrounds and different colors and 
different religions and different thoughts come together and heal our 
communities.
  That is what is at risk with this nominee, and that is why so many 
Senators on our side have said: To one more Republican Senator, send 
this nomination back to the President who campaigned saying: Let's heal 
this Nation; let's bring people together; send us a nominee who 
actually does that.
  Again, I want to thank the Senator from New Jersey and all of the 
Senators who have been here to speak about how important it is to have 
a public education.
  I wouldn't be in the Senate tonight without a public education. I 
come from a family of nine, and my father, who was a World War II 
veteran, got sick when I was in junior high. He was diagnosed with 
multiple sclerosis. My mom had been at home taking care of seven kids. 
She didn't have a job. She didn't have skills. We didn't know what was 
going to happen to us. But we had a public education system that was 
there for us. Our country was there for us with a public education 
system--not with a voucher that said you can go to a private school 
that we couldn't afford even with it or to be able to get one, but a 
public education school in our community that gave the education to 
each one of those kids in my family--all seven of us. Then it allowed 
us to go on to college with Pell grants and student loans, because our 
government was there for us, even though my dad was sick and my mom had 
to stay home and take care of him. We had food stamps for a while, and 
it was tough, but we made it because this country had a commitment to 
public education for every student, no matter where you lived or where 
you came from or what challenges you had at home.
  That is why I am here in the Senate, and that is why many of us are 
here in the Senate. It is why this nominee has sparked such an interest 
across this country. Like many Senators--I think, like all Senators--my 
office has been inundated with mail and phone calls and emails and 
rallies and people saying: Please, stop this nominee, and send us 
someone who can actually work for all of us, because education is a 
critical piece for each one of us. It is across the country.
  I want to share some of the letters that I have received about this 
nominee. I have received 48,000 pieces of mail opposed to Mrs. DeVos; 
the number of pro-DeVos emails and letters is in the teens. I have 
48,000 pieces, and they are all personal. These aren't rote emails and 
letters; these are personal pleas. Why and how? Because these people 
saw this nominee at this hearing, and their expectations for our 
education system in this country are high. They want someone leading 
the Department of Education who knows the issues, who believes in 
public education. They were appalled at what they heard, and they said 
no.
  Mrs. Mary Ann Whittaker, a woman from Longview, WA, a small rural 
community:

       Dear Senator Murray,
       As an educator of 30 years and a mother who has helped to 
     raise and educate five children, I was shocked and dismayed 
     by the lack of knowledge and depth of understanding that Ms. 
     DeVos has about education. Our education system needs a 
     leader who can be a true leader in this arena, with the 
     background and backbone to do what is in the best interest of 
     the children of this great country--please do everything in 
     your power to make sure this woman is not allowed to gain 
     this position. Thank you--on behalf of thousands of children 
     and educators in the state of Washington!!

  I heard from Joel Puchtler of Seattle, WA. He said:

       Please do everything in your power to stop DeVos from 
     becoming Secretary of Education. She is transparently 
     incompetent, and will be destructive to the nation's 
     education system through both intent and ineptitude. Demand a 
     competent appointee from the president-elect.
       I am an educator. My wife is an educator. My grandfather 
     was the first Commissioner of Education (so called at the 
     time) under the Johnson administration. He would be thrilled 
     to see a competent woman in this appointment, but 
     categorically horrified at the possibility of DeVos, just as 
     I am.

  These are the kinds of reactions I am hearing from my constituents. 
Why? Because we had this nominee come before our committee. We were 
allowed 5 minutes each to ask her questions. She has a very complex 
financial background. We were not allowed to look at those financial 
background papers before we had a chance to talk to her, so we only had 
some information. The only thing we could do was ask her questions 
about what she believed in. Her answers were astounding, and many 
people saw them, whether it was about IDEA and the ability of children 
with disabilities in this country to get an education, whether it was 
about policy debates we are having on education, or what she saw as her 
drive and her ambition. People in this country want someone who feels 
passionate about public education, not someone who has used her vast 
amounts of wealth and her experience to go after what she calls an 
education system that is incompetent and, in her opinion, needs to go 
away. Her drive has been to take the funds out of public education and 
go for private, for-profit education.
  I can understand that a woman who is a billionaire with a lot of 
money invested in companies wanting companies to succeed, but our 
public education system is not a company. Our public education system 
is something that is derived from the communities that it is in, from 
the teachers who are there, from the parents who participate as school 
board members and teacher volunteers. It is the driving passion of our 
communities. It is not something people want ripped away, torn apart, 
or degraded. That is why this nominee has touched a nerve across the 
country.
  I heard from Mrs. Rebecca Blankenship. She lives in Gig Harbor. She 
said:

       Dear Senator Murray,
       I am writing to urge you to oppose the nomination of Betsy 
     DeVos as the Secretary of Education. As a certified teacher 
     who has taught for many years in Public schools and as a 
     parent of two young girls in the Peninsula School District, I 
     find DeVos to be completely unqualified for the position as 
     she has no public school experience, has actively funneled 
     money away from schools in need and lacks the fundamental 
     educational background to make decisions that impact millions 
     of students.
       There is no issue more important to me than our education 
     system.

  I heard from Ms. Carol Pelander, a former teacher, from Tacoma, WA:

       As a retired public school teacher, who continues to work 
     part-time training new teachers, I am extremely concerned 
     about the potential damage that will be done to public 
     education if Betsy DeVos is confirmed as the Secretary of 
     Education. Our mission as educators includes teaching our 
     kids how to live and work together effectively in a diverse 
     community, and the proposals brought to the table by Ms. 
     DeVos to privatize education will further divide us as a 
     community and significantly reduce our already limited 
     resources. She is not qualified for this important leadership 
     position.

  I have been in the Senate for a long time. I have gotten a lot of 
emails, a lot of phone calls, talked to a lot of constituents, and been 
to a lot of community meetings. These thousands of letters that we are 
getting are not form letters. These are letters of people telling 
stories. They are passionate about their public schools. They have 
spoken louder about this nominee than any other, saying: This is not 
what I want for my country.
  I have heard from many people in our rural communities who are so 
concerned about privatizing our public education system because they 
don't have a private school to send their kids to, even if the voucher 
that she espouses were enough to put them into one.
  I grew up in a rural community. I grew up in the small town of 
Bothell. Coming in to town, I remember the sign that said 998 people, 
and I remember the day it said that 1,000 people lived in Bothell. Our 
schools were the heart and soul of our community. It is where your met 
your neighbors. It is where you sent your kids to play basketball. 
Everybody showed up for the football games and the music concerts. It 
was our community. We loved it, and we owned it. Did we say it was 
perfect? Did my parents say it was perfect? No. But it was the heart 
and soul of that community, and they did not want to lose it, just as 
so many other parents in this country want a Secretary of

[[Page S741]]

Education who wants all kids to have a good education.
  I have so many letters here. I have one from Adam Brickett, from 
McClure Middle School in Seattle. He says:

       Thank you for your years of service representing our state. 
     I have never contacted an elected official before--

  By the way, many of my letters start with that.

       I have never contacted an elected official before but with 
     the changes happening in our country I feel the need to now. 
     I'm writing specifically to you today about the nominee for 
     Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.
       As a middle school teacher for Seattle Public Schools I 
     work hard every day to ensure that my students get the best 
     education possible to be successful in their future careers 
     and lives. I am concerned that Ms. DeVos does not have the 
     experience necessary nor the best intentions for our nation's 
     students and schools to be our Secretary of Education. I 
     believe she would put profits and money ahead of students, 
     schools and teachers. I felt this way before her nomination 
     hearing and feel even more strongly after her hearing. I am 
     worried about the damage she could do to an already fragile 
     public education system. I know I am not alone as virtually 
     all the colleagues I have spoken with have expressed similar 
     dismay with her nomination.
       Her record of attacking public schools and funneling money 
     to charter and parochial schools with little to no oversight 
     is troubling. Her lack of experience whatsoever with public 
     education is also very disturbing. Not only has she never 
     been an educator or administrator but she has never even 
     attended or enrolled her children in public education.
       A high quality, public education is one of the most 
     powerful tools a society has. Please don't allow someone with 
     no experience and who is fundamentally against public 
     education to become the person in charge of it. I 
     respectfully ask you and your colleagues in the senate to do 
     what is right by our nation's students and reject Ms. DeVos 
     as Secretary of Education.
       Thank you again for your tireless service to the residents 
     of Washington.

  I have 48,000 letters. My staff handed me a pile of them. They are 
all very similar. They are very heartfelt. They are not just writing a 
rote letter to us. They watched the hearings, they listened, they care 
about our public schools, and some of them are Trump supporters. They 
want this President to support our public schools.
  They did not in this past election have a debate about whether we 
should privatize public schools. We talked about the debate--and I know 
my candidate didn't win. But in this country, I never heard a debate 
about taking public education away, about voucherizing our public 
schools, about having someone who is the top person--the Secretary of 
Education--espouse positions that are so fundamentally opposed to what 
I grew up with and obviously to so many parents, teachers, students, 
family members, superintendents, people involved in schools, and 
business leaders. They are writing to us now because they saw the same 
thing we did in this hearing.
  Let me read a letter from Trina Whitaker from Mukilteo Schools. She 
says:

       This is my 16th year of being a teacher in our public 
     school system in WA State. I am an advocate of public schools 
     as I feel strongly that all our students deserve the right to 
     free and quality education.
       I am opposed to the nomination of Betsy DeVos for the 
     Secretary of Education system. Her past actions and beliefs 
     clearly demonstrate that she is not an advocate for our 
     public schools. It would be so damaging if we move in the 
     direction of privatizing public education.
       Please consider opposing the nomination of Betsy DeVos in 
     the best interest for our public school system.

  Let me read another letter from Rachel Guim of Seattle. She says:

       As a committed public school teacher, I believe in our 
     neighborhood public schools, which open their doors to all 
     children, because unlike Betsy DeVos, I see them work for 
     children and their families every single day. We as a 
     community are being undermined by charters, vouchers, for-
     profit schools and online schools. Precious tax dollars are 
     being wasted creating a parallel school system (when we're 
     already underfunded and not meeting the legal requirements)! 
     Our democratically governed schools--we, the people you have 
     vowed to represent--need your commitment and support. Choice 
     is a disguise for school privatization, nothing more. Stop 
     the takeover of our democratically governed schools. . . . Do 
     not vote to confirm Betsy DeVos.

  And she goes on. Again, there are so many letters from so many people 
from so many different walks of life, all concerned about having a 
Secretary of Education who doesn't represent the best values and the 
best beliefs of our country.
  Ms. Amanda Smith, a Kindergarten teacher, wrote to me and said:

       Hello,
       I am a kindergarten teacher in a public elementary school. 
     I am very concerned about Betsy DeVos' potential nomination 
     as secretary of education. As someone who never attended 
     public school, didn't send her kids to public school, does 
     not have an education degree and has never taught, she hardly 
     seems like a fitting candidate for secretary of education. 
     Can anything be done to stop this nomination?

  From Gina McMather, a teacher in Port Townsend, WA:

       Dear Patty Murray,
       As a recently retired public school teacher, I especially 
     urge you to fight against Betsy DeVos's nomination for 
     education secretary. She is not in any way qualified for the 
     job. Her commitment to charter schools combined with a lack 
     of experience with public schools could destroy our nation's 
     educational system.
       Public school teachers provide an education for all of our 
     students. Teachers need more respect and remuneration. We 
     need the very best college graduates to be attracted to the 
     profession. I have known so many dedicated and effective 
     public school teachers during my 25-year career and those of 
     us retiring baby boomers need the best successors possible. 
     They need your support. Don't let this undermine our efforts.
       Thank you again for all your [work].

  What I hear from people over and over again is that they want 
somebody leading our public school system in this country who actually 
believes in public schools, who has the education, the experience, the 
compassion, the willingness to understand what our forefathers did when 
they created this country and said: We are going to have a country--a 
democracy--that has a public education system paid for by all taxpayers 
to assure that everyone, no matter who they are or where they come 
from, is not denied a public education. They can learn to read and 
write and communicate and get the skills they need to be successful. 
They can dream who they want to dream to be and be there.

  We do not want to go backward, and we are one vote away from changing 
where we are on this nomination, sending this back to the President, 
and asking him to please send us a Secretary of Education who can get 
the votes in the Senate, who will be an Education Secretary for all 
people, from all walks of life, from our rural communities and our 
urban communities, no matter who they are or where they come from. 
That, I think, is a great possibility and would be a great outcome.
  I know that my colleague is on the floor and is ready to speak as 
well. Again, I have so many letters from so many people--48,000--who 
have voiced their opinion on this, more than I have ever had with any 
other nominee in my memory or any other issue in my memory. I thank all 
those who have written in and spoken out and stood up for public 
education. It is the foundation of our democracy, and it is our 
responsibility, our goal to continue that for them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________