[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1824-S1825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Nomination of Amy Loyd

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to do a couple of things. I am 
awaiting the arrival of the Senator from Missouri. I am going to make a 
UC motion to bring up a very important nominee in the Secretary of 
Defense Department, but before I do, I want to comment on a UC that I 
made 2 hours ago. I stood here in this spot, and I sought unanimous 
consent to bring forward the nomination of Amy Loyd, who is the nominee 
to be Assistant Secretary of Education for Career and Technical 
Education. She passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee unanimously.
  We knew there was a hold on her nomination. We didn't know why. So I 
sought to bring forward her nomination, and the Senator from Utah, Mr. 
Lee, appeared, and I asked him why he was objecting to Amy Loyd. The 
good news was, he answered. He didn't have to, but he gave me an 
answer, and he said that her work indicated an attachment to critical 
race theory. That was his response, and he cited an article.
  I went up to him after, and I asked him what the article was, and he 
referred me to an article dated August 2020, titled ``Diversifying 
Apprenticeship: Acknowledging Unconscious Bias to Improve Employee 
Access.'' That was the reason he and, he said, on behalf of others were 
opposing Ms. Loyd's nomination for a really important position focusing 
on career and technical education in the country.
  I went back to my office, and I got the article. The article is seven 
pages long, August 2020--it is actually six pages long. It is entirely 
uncontroversial. Listen to this. There is a block that says ``What Is 
Unconscious Bias?'' Talk about fair and balanced language:

       Unconscious biases are social stereotypes about certain 
     groups of people that individuals form outside their 
     conscious awareness.

  Is that controversial? Is that controversial?
  There are recommendations for diversifying apprenticeships because, 
as we know, there are a lot of apprenticeships where there are not many 
women in apprenticeships. Ms. Loyd is a woman. She wants to diversify 
apprenticeships. That doesn't seem that unusual.
  The recommendations for diversifying apprenticeships in this 
controversial article where the phrase ``critical race theory'' is 
never mentioned are widen the selection pool; seek out workers across 
skill levels; develop transparent, detailed, and uniform criteria; get 
multiple perspectives; complement selection processes with program 
designs that increase access. This is just basic human resources. There 
is nothing in this document about critical race theory.
  When I read it thinking I was going to find some real reason to 
oppose Ms. Loyd, I found this basic human resources 101--nothing about 
critical race theory. But then I realized something even more amazing. 
I looked at

[[Page S1825]]

the author of the article. This was being held against Ms. Loyd's 
confirmation. The author of the article is Jessica Toglia, senior 
program manager of JFF. Unless this is a nom de plume, Amy Loyd had 
nothing to do with the article that was cited to block her confirmation 
for this position.
  So then I looked further. There are acknowledgements on page 7. Ms. 
Toglia thanks 10 different people who gave her ideas and thoughts that 
she put into these six pages. Amy Loyd's name isn't among the 10.
  There are then 28 footnotes and references citing articles and other 
pieces of scholarship that were written. None of them are by Amy Loyd--
none.
  So in response to my request as the son of a welder that we ought to 
have somebody at the Department of Education who values career and 
technical education, this well-qualified individual, who got out of the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee by unanimous vote, is 
now being sort of tarred with the ``critical race theory'' label based 
upon an article that she had nothing to do with--nothing to do with.
  I knew if I came back and stated this, like, well, who would listen, 
and who would care? You can assert a reason. But the reason for 
opposition to her nomination has nothing to do with her.