Schumer Floor Remarks on the SCOTUS Nomination and Bipartisan Opposition to Betsy DeVos

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today delivered remarks outlining the need for 60 votes for the Supreme Court nomination and the bipartisan opposition to Betsy DeVos:

Mr. President, I spoke at length about the Supreme Court nomination yesterday but I want to underscore a few points.

We in the Senate have a constitutional duty to examine the record of Judge Gorsuch robustly, exhaustively, and comprehensively, and then advise and consent if we see fit. We have a responsibility to reject it if we do not.

And we Democrats will insist on a rigorous but fair process.

Part of that process entails 60 votes for confirmation. Any one Democrat can require it; many already have. It was a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominations. Each received 60 votes. And most importantly, it is the right thing to do. And I would note that that 60 vote threshold was reached by each of them.

Now, on a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination, bipartisan support is essential, and should be a prerequisite – that’s what a 60-votes threshold does.

60 votes produces a mainstream candidate. And the need for a mainstream, consensus candidate is greater now than ever before because we are in new territory in two major ways:

First, because the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has shown increasing drift to become a more and more pro-business Court, siding more and more with corporations and employers and special interests over working and average Americans.

We need a mainstream nominee to help reverse that trend, not accelerate it. I remind my colleague that’s how President Trump campaigned, but his nominee seems to not be in that direction at all, not for the average working person, but rather for the special business interests.

And second, given that this Administration, at least at its outset, seems to have less respect for the rule of law than any in recent memory, and is testing the very fabric of our Constitution within its first 20 days, there is a special burden on this nominee to be an independent jurist.

…Someone who approaches the Court without ideological blinders, who has a history of operating outside and above politics, and who has the strength of will to stand up to a President who has already shown a willingness to bend the Constitution.

Requiring 60 votes has always been the right thing to do on Supreme Court nominations, especially in these polarized times, but now -- in this new era of the Court, in this new Administration – there is an even heavier weight on this tradition.

And if the nominee cannot gain the 60 votes, cannot garner bipartisan support of some significance, the answer is not to change the rules. The answer is to change the nominee and find someone who can gain those 60 votes. Changing the rules for something as important as the Supreme Court, eliminating the tradition of mainstream nominees who have bipartisan support, would be so, so wrong to do. And I know many of my colleagues on the other side are hesitant to do it, and I hope they will remain strong in that regard.

Now, Mr. President, on another matter, the pending nominations of the President’s cabinet.

Again, we are in uncharted waters with this Administration. They have not proposed a normal cabinet. This is not even close to normal.

I’ve 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 just two examples this morning, on Betsy Devos, nominee for the Dept. of Education, and Andrew Puzder, nominee for the Dept. of Labor.

First, the nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.

When you judge her on three areas – the amount of her conflicts of interest, basic competence and ideology, and views on education policy – it is clear that Betsy DeVos is simply unfit for the job of Education Secretary. In all three areas – ideology, competence, and conflicts of interest – she ranks among the lowest of any cabinet nominee I have ever seen.

• She didn’t seem to know basic facts about the federal education law that guarantees education to students with disabilities
• She didn’t seem to know the basic facts of a long-simmering debate in education policy about measuring “growth” vs “proficiency”
• And in her ethics agreement, which was delivered to the committee after her first hearing, it was revealed that she’d keep interests in several companies that benefit from millions of dollars in contracts from the Dept. of Education, which she’d oversee.

There was a rush to push her through. One round of questions, five minutes each. Why?

Why did someone generally as fair as the chairman of that committee do that? My guess, educated guess – he knew how incompetent this nominee was, how poorly she fared under normal questioning, and the idea was to rush her through. Well, Mr. President, that is not what we should be doing for something as important as this. If the nominee can’t withstand a certain amount of scrutiny, they shouldn’t be the nominee.

These glaring concerns led two of my Republican colleagues, the Senators from Maine and Alaska, to pledge a vote against her confirmation, leaving her nomination deadlocked at 50-50. I believe both of them cited the fact that in their state, charter schools are not the big issue. It’s public schools. How are we going to treat the public schools, particularly in rural areas? There is not a lot of choice of schools outside the major metropolitan areas, the major cities. If you don’t have a good public school, you have nothing. And so particularly from people from the rural states should be worried in my judgement about our nominee’s commitment to public education.

So for the first time ever, the Vice President and a pending Cabinet nominee, the nominee for Attorney General Sen. Jeff Sessions, are planning to cast 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’s clear now that Senators of both parties agree that she’s simply not qualified to be the Secretary of Education, and I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that this is such an important decision. The nominee is so laggard 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 won’t be us deciding, but it will be someone who has basic competence, fewer conflicts of interest, and above all, a commitment to public education.

I urge my Republican 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 to run a Cabinet department. In my view, by dint of 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 Dept. of Labor, Andrew Puzder.

The hearing for his nomination has now been delayed four times because he still has not submitted key paperwork 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 less jobs.

This is a nominee for the 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 searched for a candidate whose philosophy is diametrically opposed to the very purpose 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.  

I repeat this is not your typical cabinet. This is highly, highly unusual.

So when my Republican colleagues come down to the floor every day to complain about delays and holdups – I’d remind them that this is really quite serious.

These Cabinet officials will hold immense power in our government and wield immense 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 role they’re about to take up – then it’s our responsibility as Senators who advise and consent, to reject their nomination.

One final point Mr. President, I also want to take a moment mention Ukraine.  Mr. President, yesterday, Rex Tillerson was sworn in as the Secretary of State.  In addition to dealing with the fallout from the President's first engagements with Australia and Mexico, I want to call the Secretary's attention to the situation in Ukraine. 

Since President's Trump's call with Mr. Putin last weekend, there has been a significant increase in violence.  I hope Secretary Tillerson will ensure that there is a strong statement from the Trump Administration condemning these escalatory actions.

I also hope my Republican counterparts will start doing what they did last year every time this happened - come to the floor and demand that the Senate act on tough sanctions against Russia.  As I have said before, Russia remains a big threat to our nation and countering them needs to remain a deeply bipartisan effort.