[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.
____________________