[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1642-1643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              NOMINATIONS OF BETSY DeVOS AND ANDREW PUZDER

  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, on another matter, the pending nominations of the 
President's Cabinet, again, we are in unchartered waters with this 
administration. They have not proposed a normal Cabinet. This is not 
even close to a normal Cabinet.
  I have never seen a Cabinet this full of bankers and billionaires, 
folks with massive conflicts of interest and such little experience or 
expertise in the areas they will oversee. Many of the nominees have 
philosophies that cut against the very nature of the Department to 
which they were nominated.
  Let me give you two examples this morning: Betsy DeVos, the nominee 
for the Department of Education, and Andrew Puzder, nominee for the 
Labor Department.
  First, Betsy DeVos. When you judge her in three areas--conflicts of 
interest, basic competence, and ideology, views on education policy--it 
is clear that Betsy DeVos is unfit for the job of Education Secretary.
  In all three areas, ideology, competence, and conflicts of interest, 
she rates among the lowest of any Cabinet nominee I have ever seen. At 
her hearing, she didn't seem to know basic facts about Federal 
education law that guarantee education to students with disabilities. 
She didn't seem to know the basic facts of a long simmering debate in 
education policy measuring growth proficiency. And in her ethics 
agreement, which was delivered to the committee after her first 
hearing, it was revealed that she would keep interests in several 
companies that benefit from millions of dollars in contracts from the 
Department of Education, which she would oversee.
  There was a rush to push her through--one round of questions, 5 
minutes each. Why? Why did someone

[[Page 1643]]

generally as fair as the chairman of that committee do that? My guess, 
an educated guess: He knew how incompetent this nominee was, how poorly 
she fared under normal questions, and the idea was to rush her through.
  Well, that is not what we should be doing on something as important 
as this. And if the nominee can't withstand a certain amount of 
scrutiny, they shouldn't be the nominee.
  The glaring concerns have led two of my Republican colleagues, the 
Senators from Maine and Alaska, to pledge a vote against her 
confirmation, leaving her nomination deadlocked at 50 to 50. I believe 
both of them cited the fact that in their State, charter schools are 
not the big issue; it is public schools. How are we going to treat 
public schools? Particularly in rural areas, as I am sure my friend the 
Presiding Officer knows, there is not a choice of schools outside the 
major metropolitan areas, the major cities. If you don't have a good 
public school, you have nothing. So particularly people from the rural 
States should be worried, in my judgment, about our nominee's 
commitment to public education.
  For the first time ever, we have the chance that the Vice President 
and a pending Cabinet nominee, the nominee for Attorney General, 
Senator Sessions, are casting the deciding votes on a controversial 
Cabinet position for Betsy DeVos. Mr. President, this has never 
happened before.
  The White House will, in effect, get two deciding votes in the Senate 
on a nominee to the President's Cabinet: the Vice President and the 
nominee for Attorney General, our friend Senator Sessions.
  It highlights the stunning depth of concern this nominee has 
engendered in Republicans and Democrats alike. It is clear now that 
Senators of both parties agree she is not qualified to be Secretary of 
Education. And I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle--this is such an important position; the nominee is so laddered 
on issue after issue after issue that we could get someone better. I 
don't think it will be that hard. It will be President Trump's nominee. 
It will not be us deciding, but it will be someone who has basic 
competence, fewer conflicts of interest, and, above all, a commitment 
to public education.
  So I urge my Republican colleagues, friends, to stand up and reject 
Betsy DeVos, as the Cleveland Plain Dealer urged in an editorial this 
morning.
  This is not a normal nominee, once again. In my view, when I dipped 
into her record and how she performed in her brief hearing, she has not 
earned and should not receive the Senate's approval.
  Second, the nominee for the Department of Labor, Andrew Puzder. The 
hearing for his nomination has now been delayed four times because he 
still hasn't submitted key paperwork laying out his disclosures and 
detailing a plan for divesting, if necessary, to avoid conflicts of 
interest. But that might be the least of the Senate's concerns.
  This is a nominee who is being sued by dozens of former employees due 
to workplace violations. This is a nominee who has repeatedly attacked 
the minimum wage, opposed the overtime rule, and advocated for more 
automation and fewer jobs. He talked about--I think in very positive 
terms--robots and how they may run the fast food industry. This is a 
nominee for Secretary of Labor who not only wants workers to earn less, 
he wants fewer workers.
  For several of these Cabinet positions, it seems the President has 
searched for candidates whose philosophies are diametrically opposed to 
the very purposes of their Departments. For Education, pick someone 
with no experience in public schools and has spent her career 
advocating against them. For Labor, pick someone who has spent his 
career trying to keep the wages of his employees low and advocated 
against policies that benefit workers.
  Again, I repeat: This is not your typical Cabinet. This is highly, 
highly unusual.
  So when my Republican colleagues come to the floor every day to 
complain about delays and holdups, I would remind them that this is 
very serious. These Cabinet officials will have immense power in our 
government and wield enormous influence over the lives of average 
Americans: their wages and the education of their children, for 
instance.
  To spend a few more days on the process is well worth it. And if they 
prove unfit for the austere and powerful roles they are about to take 
up, then it is our responsibility, as Senators who advise and consent, 
to reject their nomination.

                          ____________________