[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 25, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1812-S1813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Department of Education
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me take you back to January of 1985.
Ronald Reagan had just begun his second term as President, and one of
his policy priorities was to include the abolition of the Department of
Education. What did it finally take to get him to back down from that
commitment? Congress. Congress stood firm to protect this vital Agency
in 1985.
In a letter to Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican Senator from Utah,
President Reagan said that, although he wanted to dismantle the
Department, ``the proposal has received very little support in
Congress,'' and because of the lack of support from Congress, which
would be necessary, of course, to close down the Agency, President
Reagan decided not to proceed with his plan.
Sound familiar?
That is because, currently, another Republican President, who ran on
the slogan of ``making America great again,'' has suggested abolishing
the Department of Education--only this time, he is not consulting with
Congress; he is taking steps to do it. Last week, President Trump
signed an Executive order to close down the Department of Education.
Demolishing the Federal Agency dedicated to the success of our next
generation is shortsighted and deeply damaging to the future of this
country. Families, schools, and young people in my State of Illinois
and across the Nation depend on the Department of Education. In
Illinois, the Department provides critical annual funding for K-
through-12 schools to meet the needs of 4,000 schools and more than 2
million students. This includes $652 million in annual Federal funding
for nearly 300,000 kids with disabilities.
I can remember a time when I went to school, and it was rare that you
saw a disabled child in school. I don't know where they were--they were
being hidden or something or held back--but they certainly weren't
being given the opportunities they have today.
That also includes $778 million in annual funding for schools
enrolling 1.3 million students from low-income backgrounds and so much
more. These are kids who are attending schools which aren't in the best
and wealthiest neighborhoods. They have got good families who care
about their educations, and we give them a helping hand to make sure
those kids have a fighting chance.
President Trump has repeatedly promised to ``send education back to
the States,'' but State and local funds already account for the vast
majority of K-through-12 education funding, and States and school
districts decide what is taught in schools, not the Federal Government.
Cuts to Federal education programs and funds will hurt the Nation's
students and the communities they live in. Shuttering the Department of
Education threatens funding for low-income students and special
education, and it makes uncertain the future of Federal student loans
and Pell grants.
We all know what a Pell grant is. It is an opportunity for a child
from a family of modest means to finally go to college. Funding degrees
with these Pell grants opens the door for opportunity. It prepares
these students to be part of the future workforce and the economy, and
it allows America to continue to compete on the global stage. In
Illinois, 226,000 students receive $1 billion in Pell grants to afford
higher education--a program that has received bipartisan support.
So what does President Trump plan on doing with these student loans
if he abolishes the Department of Education?
Well, they made a proposal. They want to shift the administration's
loan program to the Small Business Administration--a separate Agency--
while, at the same time, the President and the DOGE folks have planned
to fire 40 percent of the Federal employees at the Small Business
Administration.
So follow the bouncing ball here. He wants to eliminate the
Department of Education and call into question the administration of a
program that literally millions of students rely on to go to school,
and he is going to shift the responsibilities for administering that
program to the Small Business Administration, which is not a large
Agency. At the same time, he is going to cut the number of employees at
the SBA by 40 percent.
Do you have any idea what is going to happen as a result of that?
Most people know. It is going to be an administrative disaster.
Donald Trump is not trying to move education back to the States. In a
real-life shell game, he is moving pieces around until we lose sight of
the ball and, in the process, making drastic changes to our education
system.
This administration will not stop in its relentless effort to weaken
America's public schools. Before signing last week's Executive order,
President Trump made significant staff cuts at the Department--already
one of the smallest Agencies. He fired more than half the staff at the
Department of Education.
Why does he need this money that he is going to bring back to the
Treasury by firing these people? Because, of course, he needs to pay
for tax cuts for wealthy people. We have seen it before. In President
Trump's first administration, he had the distinction of having created
more national debt in 4 years than had any previous President. He is
out to set a new record this time. It is not that he is just for tax
cuts; they have to be tax cuts that really favor the wealthiest
taxpayers in America. That is just wrong.
He has fired employees at the Office of Federal Student Aid. He has
slashed the staff at the Office for Civil Rights. This means students
applying for financial aid will have to wait longer to learn whether
they can afford to go to college. It means students defrauded by
predatory for-profit colleges won't see the student loan relief they
are entitled to.
What am I talking about here?
You can tell the story of for-profit colleges and universities with
two numbers: 8 and 30. Eight percent of the graduates of high school in
America end up in for-profit colleges and universities, but 30 percent
of all the student loan defaults are these same students.
Why this difference, this disparity? They charge too much for
tuition. They offer far less education than promised, and the students
are often defrauded in the process.
Historically, they have turned to the Office for Civil Rights in the
Department of Education to get forgiven some of the loans they have
incurred because of the fraudulent conduct of these schools. Now, of
course, in closing the Department of Education and closing the Office
for Civil Rights, it denies them their opportunity and their day in
court. It means weaker enforcement of Federal laws passed by Congress
to protect students from marginalized backgrounds and students with
disabilities, and it means the students and families with open cases in
the Office for Civil Rights are unlikely to see any resolution.
[[Page S1813]]
Meanwhile, instead of investigating instances of genuine
discrimination, the administration is laser-focused on targeting
universities that do not align with its values, in hopes of suppressing
free speech and banning transgender athletes from participating in
women's sports.
How does closing the one Agency responsible for shaping our Nation's
young people and for building the competitive workforce of tomorrow
make America great?
It doesn't. Not only will closing down the Department of Education
hurt millions of young people across the country and weaken our
Nation's future; it is also illegal. The President does not have the
power or the authority to unilaterally close these Agencies. That is
being tested in court, and the President is not doing well in those
tests.
I want to make sure the Department of Education is efficient, and I
want to make sure it is responsive. But the notion that we are going to
shift all of the student loans to the SBA is an example of someone who
didn't think it through. With fewer employees at that Agency, they will
be unable to do the job which they were assigned the responsibility of
doing, and they will change the lives of a lot of American students in
the process.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas.