[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1111-1113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF BETSY DeVOS

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Democratic Senators are searching for a 
valid reason to oppose the President's nomination of Betsy DeVos to be 
U.S. Education Secretary because they really don't want Americans to 
know what their real reason is. Here is the real reason: Betsy DeVos 
has spent the last 30 years--actually more than 30 years--being 
dedicated to helping low-income children in America have more of the 
same choices of schools that wealthy Americans already have.
  Specifically, the Democrats object to the fact that Betsy DeVos 
supports the idea of tax dollars following low-income children to the 
school that their parents may choose--public, private, or religious. 
This is not a new or subversive idea. Let us go back to 1944, the GI 
bill for veterans. The Congress enacted probably the most successful 
piece of social legislation ever enacted when it passed the GI bill for 
veterans. As a result, veterans came home from World War II and Federal 
tax dollars followed them to the accredited college or university of 
their choice.
  They could go to Notre Dame. They could go the University of Arizona. 
They could go to Nashville Auto Diesel College, the University of 
Tennessee. It did not matter. It was their choice. That is when 
Americans experience with education vouchers began. I have always 
wondered, why would an idea that helped to create the ``greatest 
generation''--which is what we call the World War II generation--that 
helped to create the best colleges and universities in the world, why 
would that be such a dangerous idea to use for our schools?
  The idea of education vouchers following students to the college of 
their choice has been continued in higher education. Pell grants--we 
spend about $30 billion in Pell grants every year, up to $6,000, that 
follow lower income students to the community college or college of 
their choice. Those are education vouchers.
  We have almost $100 billion of new student loans every year. How do 
we spend that money? We allow that money to follow the college students 
to the college of their choice. Those are education vouchers. Starting 
with the GI bill for veterans, all the way through Pell grants, all the 
way through student loans, we all endorse those ideas, saying it 
creates great opportunity for children. It has been so successful. I 
have not heard any Senator in this body stand up and say: Well, let's 
cancel the Pell grants because it is tax money following students to a 
college. Let's cancel $100 billion in student loans this year because 
it means tax dollars following someone to Harvard or to Notre Dame or 
to Yeshiva.
  No one is going to say that. Then why do they get so exercised about 
that when it has to do with our schools? In addition to that, Mrs. 
DeVos has testified before our committee that she does not favor--as 
much as she supports the idea of giving parents choices with schools--
she does not favor Washington, DC, telling Arizona or Tennessee or any 
other State that they must do that, even though her critics, those who 
are opposing her now, delight in the idea of a national school board 
and in imposing their pet ideas on States, such as the common core 
academic standards.
  Fortunately, we agreed in December of 2015 to prohibit that, but here 
we have a lady who has spent her time helping low-income children have 
more choices of schools. It was said, I respect your right to make that 
decision for yourself. I don't believe Washington should tell you to do 
that. Yes, they are really upset with her.
  So I would ask: Who is in the mainstream--the GI bill for veterans; 
Pell grants, $30 billion worth; $100 billion of student loans this 
year; President George H.W. Bush; President George W. Bush; the 25 
States that have State choice programs; Congress, with its passage of 
the Washington, DC, voucher program, which has 1,000 students standing 
in line hoping to get a chance to go to a better school; 45 Senators 
who voted on this floor in 2015 for the Scholarships for Kids 
legislation I proposed that would allow States to take $24 billion in 
Federal dollars, turn them into $2,100 scholarships and let them follow 
the children, the low-income children, to the school the State believes 
they should go to; or Betsy DeVos--that is all on one side--or her 
critics? I think Betsy DeVos is in the mainstream.
  The second reason the Democrats on the committee are opposing Betsy 
DeVos is because she supports charter schools. Now, I know a little bit 
about charter schools. My last month as U.S. Education Secretary, in 
January 1993, I wrote a letter to every school superintendent in 
America and said: Why don't you try this new idea that the Minnesota 
Democratic Farmer-Labor Party has invented called charter schools.

[[Page 1112]]

  There were only 12 charter schools then. The first President Bush, 
with my help, had been working for 2 years to create what we called New 
American Schools, start-from-scratch schools, the idea of giving 
teachers more freedom, parents more choices.
  That seemed to us like a good idea in a country that values 
opportunity and competition. Well, not only did we think so, over the 
last 30 years or so, a lot of people have thought so. Today, there are 
6,800 public charter schools in America. These are public schools. 
These are schools that have fewer union rules and fewer government 
rules so teachers have more freedom to teach and parents have more 
freedom to choose the school that is appropriate for their child.
  Boy, that is really a subversive idea. Oh, no, it is not subversive 
because the last six Presidents of the United States have supported 
charter schools, not just the Presidents Bush but also the last four 
Presidents of the United States--Presidents Bush and President Obama 
and President Clinton and now President Trump. That is five.
  The last six U.S. Secretaries of Education have supported charter 
schools, including both of President Obama's Education Secretaries, 
Arne Duncan and John King. John King was founder of a charter school 
system in Massachusetts. Forty-three States have authorized charter 
schools. That is where the 6,800 charter schools are; 2.9 million 
people go to those charter schools. That is more than 6 percent of all 
the children in public schools in America. I would ask the question 
again: Who is in the mainstream? the last five Presidents, the last six 
Education Secretaries, 43 States, the Senate, Betsy DeVos or her 
critics--or her critics?
  Now, the third reason her critics don't like her is because she is 
wealthy. No question about that. All of her information is public for 
everybody to see. She has agreed to divest herself of 102 investments 
that the Office of Government Ethics has identified as possibly causing 
a conflict of interest. When those are gone, she has no conflicts of 
interest. Her investments are public.
  They don't like the fact that she has money. Would they have been 
happier if she had spent the last 30 years trying to deny low-income 
children an opportunity to go to a better school? No. She has spent her 
money and her time trying to help children from low-income families go 
to a better school. Her opponents are really grasping for straws, and I 
am very disappointed in them.
  ``We did not have time to question her,'' they said at our committee 
hearings. Well, let's go over the facts. No. 1, she visited everyone in 
their offices individually, so they had a chance to ask her questions 
then. Then she appeared at a hearing for questions for about 3\1/2\ 
hours or nearly 90 minutes more than either of President Obama's 
Education Secretaries.
  Now we have followup questions coming from the Democratic Senators. 
Let me tell you what they are doing. They have asked her 1,397 followup 
questions after the hearing. Remember, this is a hearing where she 
spent more time than either of President Obama's Secretaries answering 
questions, after she had been to be their offices answering questions.
  By comparison, Republicans asked President Obama's first Secretary 53 
followup questions, his second Secretary 56 followup questions. The 
Democrats have asked 1,397 followup questions. I think what they are 
doing says more about them then it does about her. In other words, they 
have asked 25 times as many followup questions of Ms. DeVos as 
Republicans asked of either of President Obama's Education Secretaries.
  Finally, they are throwing around conflict-of-interest accusations. 
As I just mentioned--let me mention it again. Last week, Mrs. DeVos 
signed an agreement with the Independent Office of Government Ethics. 
The job of that office is to review the financial holdings of any 
Cabinet nominee and identify any conflicts of interest. They identified 
102 because the DeVos's have a lot of money. Mrs. DeVos agreed to sell 
all 102 of those assets. According to the letter of agreement between 
the Office of Government Ethics and the independent ethics officer in 
the Education Department, who is already in the Department, Mrs. DeVos 
is not, after she divests herself of those items, which she has 90 days 
to do--she has no conflicts of interest.
  She has also filled out the same financial disclosure forms that are 
fundamentally like the ones we Senators fill out. People know where we 
get our money. They know what we own. They know what we owe. We know 
that about her.
  We also know that the independent Office of Government Ethics has 
said she will have no conflicts and that she has agreed to that.
  We also know that she supports giving low-income children more choice 
of schools, which more Americans support; 73 percent of the American 
people told a Luntz public opinion survey that they supported more 
choices of schools.
  And then tax returns--some have mentioned tax returns. Well, Federal 
law doesn't require Cabinet nominees to produce tax returns. Our 
Education Committee does not require nominees to produce tax returns. 
U.S. Senators aren't required to produce tax returns, and why? Because 
we fill out extensive financial disclosure forms so that the public 
knows what we own, what we owe, and they can make an evaluation about 
that. They also know whether we have a conflict of interest, in the 
case of the Cabinet members, because the independent Office of 
Government Ethics decides that, and they know that we have paid our 
taxes because we have to declare that under oath, and there is an FBI 
investigation on top of that, which Mrs. DeVos, like every other 
Cabinet nominee, has gone through.
  One year ago, the Office of Education Secretary was vacant. I talked 
to President Obama about it, and I said: I don't think it is 
appropriate for that office to be vacant. We need the institutional 
responsibility of having a confirmed U.S. Education Secretary 
responsive to the Senate.
  And I said: Mr. President, if you appoint someone--and I knew very 
well that he intended to appoint John King, with whom I greatly 
disagree on the scope of Federal education policy--I said: I will make 
sure that he has a prompt hearing in our committee, and I will make 
sure that he is confirmed on the floor of the Senate.
  President Obama appointed John King. He had a prompt hearing, and he 
was confirmed within 3 weeks. As I said, Republicans asked him 56 
questions, compared with the nearly 1,400 questions the Democrats are 
asking Mrs. DeVos.
  So I ask the American people to compare this just for a minute. Look 
at the reasons they really don't want to confirm Betsy DeVos. No. 1, 
she spent 30 years trying to help low-income children attend a better 
school. No. 2, she supports public charter schools. No. 3, she spent 
her money helping low-income children have a better school, instead of 
denying them a better school. And No. 4, she has disclosed everything 
there is to disclose, and she has divested herself of every conflict 
that the independent Office of Government Ethics has said there is. In 
addition, I rescheduled a mark-up this week until next Tuesday so that 
members of the committee would have a chance to review all of this 
information.
  Next Tuesday, we will vote on whether to approve Betsy DeVos's 
nomination to the Office of the Secretary of Education, and we will 
send that to the floor of the full Senate. I am confident we will do 
that, and I am confident the Senate will approve her.
  Even though they may disagree with her, Democrats should give the new 
President a chance to have his own Education Secretary, just as we 
did--just as we Republicans did for President Obama.
  Few Americans have done as much as Betsy DeVos has to help low-income 
children have a choice of a better school. The Democrats' opposition to 
her says more about them than it does about her.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter which I have written to my distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Murray, declining to have a second hearing on Mrs. DeVos.

[[Page 1113]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 January 23, 2017.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murray: Thank you for your letter today 
     requesting a second hearing for Betsy DeVos.
       I have carefully considered the request and decided not to 
     schedule a second hearing, and here is why: Already Mrs. 
     DeVos has spent considerably more time answering questions of 
     committee members than either of President Obama's education 
     secretaries, and I do not know why our committee should treat 
     a Republican nominee so differently than the nominee of a 
     Democratic president.
       First, she has met with each committee member in his or her 
     office for the purpose of answering questions.
       Then, her confirmation hearing lasted nearly an hour and a 
     half longer than those for either of President Obama's 
     nominees for education secretary.
       Now she is answering 837 written follow-up questions from 
     Democratic committee members--1,397 if you include all the 
     questions within a question. By comparison, Republicans asked 
     President Obama's first education secretary 53 written 
     follow-up questions and his second education secretary 56 
     written follow-up questions, including questions within a 
     question. In other words, Democrats have asked Mrs. DeVos 25 
     times as many follow-up questions as Republicans asked of 
     either of President Obama's education secretaries.
       On January 4, two weeks before her nomination hearing on 
     January 17, committee members received Mrs. DeVos' completed 
     financial disclosure and committee questionnaire. Also on 
     January 4, committee members received the same information 
     that she submitted to the Office of Government Ethics on 
     December 12, 2016, about all of her financial holdings.
       Many of the 837 written follow-up questions have to do with 
     this financial information that has been before the committee 
     members since January 4, two weeks before her nomination 
     hearing.
       Last Thursday, January 19, Mrs. DeVos and the independent 
     Office of Government Ethics agreed that within 90 days of her 
     confirmation, she would divest herself of 102 holdings ``to 
     avoid conflicts of interest.'' When she completes this, 
     according to the letter from the Office of Government 
     Ethics--done in consultation with the department's own Ethics 
     Division--she will be ``in compliance with applicable laws 
     and regulations governing conflicts of interest.''
       I delayed the committee vote which was scheduled for 
     tomorrow, Tuesday, January 24, for one week to allow 
     committee members to review all of this information before 
     they cast a vote next Tuesday, January 31, at 10:00 a.m. on 
     whether or not to recommend Mrs. DeVos to the full Senate.
       One year ago, because I believed presidents should have 
     their Cabinet members in place in order to govern, I worked 
     to confirm promptly President Obama's nomination of John King 
     to be education secretary, even though I disagreed with him. 
     Even though you may disagree with Betsy DeVos, I would 
     respectfully ask you to confirm her. Few Americans have done 
     more to help children of low-income families have a choice of 
     better schools.
           Sincerely,
     Lamar Alexander,
       Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I will point out again that I see no reason I should 
treat a Republican President's nominee so differently than a Democratic 
President's nominee would be treated.
  Betsy DeVos has visited every office of the Democratic Senators. She 
has testified for up to 90 minutes longer than either of President 
Obama's Secretaries. She is answering nearly 1,400 follow-up questions 
when each of those Secretaries under President Obama answered 53 and 
56.
  The reasons for opposing her are reasons that are not valid. I mean, 
how can you turn down a woman for U.S. Secretary when she spent 30 
years of her life trying to help low-income children find a better 
school?
  We have had our hearing. She will answer the questions. Next Tuesday 
we will have a vote. She will be sent to the Senate, and hopefully the 
Senate will confirm her. I look forward to working with her as U.S. 
Secretary.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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, I came to the floor today to talk about 
women's health. But before I do, I want to address an issue that my 
colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, just talked about: President 
Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.
  This is a nominee the Democrats have significant numbers of concerns 
about. In her hearing, where Republicans blocked us from asking 
questions in an unprecedented and disappointing way, Mrs. DeVos gave 
what has been widely seen as ill-informed, confused, and concerning 
responses to serious and reasonable questions. She refused to rule out 
slashing investments in or privatizing our public schools. She was 
confused that Federal law provides protections for students with 
disabilities. She actually argued that guns needed to be allowed in our 
schools across the country to ``protect from grizzlies.'' And even 
though she was willing to say that President Trump's behavior toward 
women should be considered sexual assault, she would not commit to 
actually enforcing Federal laws protecting women and girls in our 
schools. So that nominee is absolutely not ``in the mainstream.'' She 
is far from it.
  When it comes to policy, many of us have serious concerns about 
whether she would stand with students and parents who care about strong 
public education for all or with President Trump and other millionaires 
and billionaires like them. And that does not even touch on the serious 
questions that remain regarding her ethics paperwork, her tangled 
finances, and her potential conflicts of interest--questions that 
Democrats have continued to demand answers to.
  After her first hearing, Mrs. DeVos announced that she would have to 
divest 102 separate assets, many of them investments in education 
companies that Democrats were unable to ask her about. So Democrats 
have requested another hearing to get information on those issues and 
to do our job scrutinizing this nominee. I am hopeful that my 
colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, does allow that to happen 
because here in the Senate, we owe it to our constituents to scrutinize 
these nominees. That is our job. It is not our job to protect them from 
tough questions; it is our job to ask them tough questions.
  While I suspect that my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, 
supports Mrs. DeVos and I respect that he is the chairman of the 
committee, I am hopeful that he does not simply jam this nominee 
through without allowing us to do our job.

                          ____________________