tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 9, 2015 10:00pm-12:01am EDT
according to the other outside experts. these estimates are far higher than what the barack obama administration negotiating in a nuclear a nuclear deal with the tehran government has implied they spend on the policy to destabilize the middle east. i would add to that debate are basically even taking over the cabinet positions in the government. june 5 report, the surveillance vessels china has begun off the coast of hawaii in response to the navy's monitoring activities of the disputed islands in the south china sea. the purported surveillance comes on the heels of the raised tensions between china and the united states like last month.
u.s. struggles for the strategy to contain china's island building. the efforts to dredge new land on the remote in the south china sea has left them struggling to come up with a response. the chinese land creation has helped make allies and former adversaries fearful of military domination by an assertive china. the latest example is a trip to vietnam by carter, u.s. defense secretary to the vietnamese. but there is a limit to how far they are willing to present to the united front to china to the 2,000 acres in the last 18 months far outstripping all other claimants according to mr. carter. the obama administration is also unsure of how strongly you should push back against what the u.s. officials see as a
long-term chinese plan to control the region's waters. and finally, actually this is a piece from politico. the united states should have a strategy to fight the state department spokesman. the president was referring to a specific plan to improve the training and equipping of the security forces at the pentagon is working on a plan right now but absolutely we have a strategy tuesday on the morning joe. i would be overjoyed to have that plan to have a complete strategy plan presented to the congress and american people. it would be a wonderful event and the fact is they have no
strategy and they have no policy and the world is on fire. here we are wanting to pass the amendment which would deprive the men and women who are serving the needs and the wherewithal to defend the nation. i hope that my colleagues will strongly reject the amendment that will be pending before this body. i yield the floor. senator menendez senator booker, senator feinstein, senator cardin, senator klobuchar and senator peter's as being cosponsored of the amendment number 1521 through hr
1735. but it objects the way that it is being used. as a way to circumvent the budget control act and it does so on very strong grounds that over the long run than officials to the department of defense and to everyone who is engaged in the defense of the united states. mr. president we debate on many issues in the senate and while all of the issues are important, occasionally, we must face an issue that could change the course of the nation.
i did not vote in favor of the war. in fact i spoke up against it. and i think that the outcome could have been very different back then if we had more of a debate about the true course. it was for over a decade the american taxpayers would be on the hook for trillions of dollars and then we would perhaps even contributed by actions to new threats that we are facing today. back then it was implied that opposing the iraq war didn't you
didn't score the troops or the national security. and i think that the intervening years have shown that to be inaccurate. they voted against cloture on the national defense authorization bill ten times and over that same period a vote against final passage on the senate floor eight times. sometimes it was because of the policy differences like ending don't ask don't tell. other times it was things like gas prices at the pump or other issues. but i don't think that anyone has ever viewed to be unpatriotic.
we can't change history but we can certainly learn from it. we know we must plan for it and pay for it by making strategic investments today. and it is today really boils down to this. what is the most effective way to provide for the national defense? i don't think that inflating the counter intentions he because it complicates rather than helps the problem. it doesn't allow the military to effectively plan for the future. we need to replace the sequester with a balanced approach that keeps america safe and strong at home and abroad. when it comes to the defense budget, congress should adhere to the same standards as the honesty transparency that the demand for the troops. but right now there is a serious disconnect in the mechanism and congress needs to step up and
fix it. the president's fiscal year budget request of defense was $38 billion above the 2011 budget control act. the president requested a $38 billion to be authorized and appropriated as a part of the annual base budget so that it could be part of the defense department funding but just for one year that in the budget for an indefinite period of time. the request also contains $50.9 billion for the account meaning funding for the truly war related offenses. and not on the base budget requirement. however, this bill is on the lead of the budget resolution does not address the impact. on defense and nondefense. instead, it turns to a gimmick.
this bill initially transferred $39 billion from the base budget request of the president leading the base budget below the level in order to avoid the automatic reduction for the sequestration. the funding shifted is for the military services not direct war related costs were those generated in iraq and afghanistan and elsewhere. it includes the ships and submarines and the national military strategy. these are not expenses. these are the expenses in the department of defense facing the long-term challenges of the united states and maintaining the long term capabilities of the united states defense forces
some said that we should avoid the budget control pass through this approach for a year while it deals with the cap that is negotiated. >> i couldn't disagree more. because if we used this approach, this gimmick for one year it will be easier to do it next year and the year after and the year after that in the end balance between security and domestic spending. in this way it is completely counter to the intent of the budget control act. the bca's proposed equal cuts proposed equal cuts to the defense and nondefense spending to force a bipartisan compromise this approach unilaterally reneges on a bipartisan approach. rather than generating the momentum for the permanent solution for the sequestration
this approach essentially exempts the spending from the cab and releases all pressure to find a solution that provides relief for the drastic priorities. >> the president's defense budget request placed the needed funding in the base where it should be. and it provided for the fund to continue overseas that exists today. the budget resolution and the bill before us that the president's request for the funding. this is not a question whether the president asked for a certain amount of money and my republican colleagues are asking for more. what they did is essentially said we are going to not technically come and i emphasize technically violate the account. we are just going to move more money in. so we can stand up with a straight face and say it applies across the whole board.
every government agency is subject to the same type limits the budget control act proposes that of course the truth is that doesn't apply. and it's particularly startling when you look at the request for the domestic agencies. he asked for $37 billion for all of the other domestic agencies. and without that they will have a very difficult challenge of meeting the basic needs of the american public that every colleague in this chamber recognizes. some might disagree that they recognize that we need to support education as we've gone through decades and the title i program. we need to support people. particularly through the senior housing programs in every state and in every community that has
to be done. but if we follow this path, it will be harder and harder for the nondefense agencies to do this. and so what we have created is a huge loophole. and again, let me find you the president and republicans on the site are arguing about the resources of the defense. it's the same number. but what they've done on the other side is funded at the not straightforward but we have to recognize by using this, and i say again i believe this approach will be a magnet for the nondefense spending issue for years. many things will find their way
into the accounts. for example fiscal year 1992, congress added to the defense bill for breast cancer research three at the time discretionary spending was subject to the statutory caps on the budget enforcement act of 1990. this was a follow-on to the act of 1985. what we have done is establish the caps on discretionary domestic spending that no similar gaps on the other side, and that is precisely what the effect of the proposal is today. the initial funding led to the establishment of the congressional directed medical research program. every senator is familiar with this important program. i would suspect every senator would say that research on breast cancer is so important. that's is so critical and so important. it has strong bipartisan support. and each fiscal year the
congress organizes and appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars for the cutting edge and the critically essential research areas. in fact, since 1992, the funding has received over $13 billion while this program is funded through and is managed by the army, the department of defense doesn't execute any of the money itself. it is a competitive grant programs and it proposes a programmatic review criteria. back then the only way that you could get this done is because there were no caps effectively on the defense spending and i would suggest that that is going to repeat itself over and over again if we start on this path. and that's why we can look today and say we have these pressing crises all across the globe and
it's true. but if we go down this path we will see these types of developments. and again i'm a strong supporter of that research. these programs have saved countless lives. i will support the funding in this bill. i think it is a way that we will establish a deal in the program but we should recognize it came about not because it was the most logical place for the medical research funding it a budgetary expedience just like this approach today. >> and it will be replicated. and looking forward to ten years, i would suggest that you will see lots of programs that bear less and less connectivity through the overseas operation included if that's the way we choose to get around, and that
is what this legislation is doing. >> moving this funding from the base has no impact on reducing the deficit. the emergency funding are outside the budget caps for a reason. they are for the course of the ongoing operations or a response to the other unforeseen events like natural disasters. to suddenly ignore the true purpose of the budgetary gimmick or the slush fund is unacceptable use of this important tool for the war fighters. just to highlight how this approach skews the defense spending consider the amount in relation to the number deployed troops. if you ask someone i think on the street, while these overstreet funds are they used to support the forces overseas there better be some relationship between the number of forces overseas and spending.
let's see. at the height of the commitment in iraq and afghanistan, 187000 troops deployed. we spent approximately $1 million in the funding for every service member deployed to those countries. under this bill we would spend approximately $9 million for every service member deployed to iraq and afghanistan. roughly 9,930 military personnel so, we are doing a lot more than spending for this bill. deliberately, i was more. we are doing what we used to do in the base budget of the department of defense. it circumvents the law. it's not fiscally responsible
and it's not an honest accounting to the heir to the public. years ago with 187,000 troops, the costs were about a million dollars per trip and now they are 9 million. something is askew. and adding to the funds doesn't solve and sometimes it complicates the budgetary problems varied as the army chief of staff general odierno says they have limits and restrictions and very strict rules and has to be followed. what might happen is we have a bunch of money to hand back because we wouldn't spend it. it speaks to the long-term military strategy that requires the dod to focus at least five years in the future. a one-year plus does not provide them with the certainty and
stability that it needs for the five-year budget. as the chair of the joint chiefs says we need to fix the base budget. we will not have the certainty that we need. if there is a year-by-year fix. the defense secretary added that it doesn't allow the defense stop efficiently or strategically. adding funds is a managerial approach to the process. according to the vice chief of staff admiral mike allen and the current restrictions on the employment will not allow it to be a gap though or that it's currently cover to offset the reduction in the base budget of the it is driven in the current proposals before congress. in order to meet the needs of the army is must must upgrade its flexibility. it must be as restrictive and it must enable us to sustain and modernize as we go forward.
this undermines the morale of the protein families want another futures have plans for more than one year at a time. in the confidence of the defense partners who rely on the technology available to the troops are also tested. of use in this way would undermine the support for the critical mechanism used to fund the incremental cost of overseas conflicts. we have to have a disciplined system to estimate the cost and fund a trained ready force. the administration has indicated that the legislation will be subject to veto. as the secretary says, said, this approach is clearly the road to nowhere. i say this because president obama has already made clear that he will not accept the logic that walks in sequestration going forward as this approach does and he will not accept the budget was a link between the national security
and our economic security. and when you talk about national security, true national security requires that the agencies also receive relief from the caps. but the pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national security challenges without the help of the other agencies including state, justice and homeland security. the armed services committee would have heard testimony on the role it of others to ensure that national defense remains strong. they share the burden would grow if the with the agencies are not adequately funded as well. there is a symbiotic relationship between the department of defense and other agencies that contributed to the national security. it has to be recognized that a truly whole of government approach requires more than just a strong dod.
the caps are based on a misnomer that discretionary spending is divided into security and nonsecurity spending but the members need to be clear essential national security functions are performed by the governmental agencies and departments other than the defense department. according to the commander we do not and we cannot do this mission a loan. our strong partnerships with the agency especially the department of homeland security the u.s. coast guard, the drug enforcement administration to the federal bureau of investigation and the treasury state are in trouble to the efforts to ensure that the defense. and as the retired marine corps general said if you don't fund the state fully, then i need to buy more ammunition.
>> the general best illustrated in the administration nine minus efforts to counter the so-called islamic state of iraq which 83% of americans think is the number one threat to the united states. of the administration's nine lines that effort only two of them are within the response ability of the intelligence community. the remaining seven elements of the counter access strategy rely heavily on the civilian departments and agencies. for example, one of supporting the affected governments in iraq. no amount of military assistance to the government of iraq will be affected countering the threats in iraq if the government doesn't doesn't govern in a more transparent and inclusive manner that gives hope that they will participate politically in the future. we need a diplomatic and
political experts at the state department to engage with the communities in iraq to promote reconciliation and build the political political unity among the iraqi people needed to defeat, and that is not a strict defense department initiative. >> we have to build the partner capacity. the coalition is building the ability and the wage a long-term campaign against isis. while the efforts to build the capacity to the iraqi security forces are somewhat funded by the defense department the state department and usaid are also responsible for the billions of dollars in the similar activities across the broad spectrum of activities. under the republican plan, none of the state programs will be plus dot. they will address the gap as a threat to combat isis. we have to disrupt the finances.
the expansion has given access to the significant and diverse sources of funding. they require the state department and the treasury department to work. the state and treasury led led efforts were essentially deemed not security activities and under the republican approach to maybe hamburg but it's also notable that the office of the asset control and can resume and financial intelligence in the treasury department also categorized as nonsecurity activities. the strategy not only means that the efforts will be hampered about so will the efforts to impose effective sanctions
against those that support illicit activities will also be affected. we have to continually expose a the nature of the command including state department voice america. republican approach of funding the strategic communication strategy is part of a government plan, not a whole of government plan. we have to disrupt fighting. they are the lifeblood yet the key components to department of homeland security will be facing cuts under the budget proposal undermining the efforts to disrupt too serious and iraq and while the efforts of the diplomats around the world talking to partners to pass the law on the books the efforts of the coalition will never be successful. hispanic my colleague pointed
out again our first agency typically responds to the united states agency for international development and other state department agencies. we won't be able to deal with that issue if those budget caps are imposed by the usaid and other agencies. and these refugee camps are one of the breeding grounds for the fighters that flow back into the conflict zone. so unless we adopt a much broader approach unless we do something than simply other .-full-stop the defense, we will not achieve true national security. and of course we have to protect the homeland. while a small portion is considered to be security related under cover the vast majority of the department .-full-stop her a nonsecurity
gap. this further demonstrates that the republican plan isn't as known and it's an effort to play a game of smoke and mirrors and the american public. the agents of the department of homeland security that are on guard by the agency and the drunken first met agents of pickup intelligence then contribute that they will be treated distinctly different if we adopt the approach that is enhanced in the defense authorization bill and i talked about the questions. virtually none of the activities that support the efforts in the region are considered security activities. military commanders will routinely tell you that the efforts of the state county office of the foreign foreign disaster assistance are critical to the broad security efforts and this is particularly true in the counter campaign. again those refugees that are flooding into the country is
adjacent to iraq, they have to be involved with with them only on the demand. ground but also the potential sources of the foreign fighters and that is going to require a whole of government approach not simply to beef up the defense spending. .. romise the campaign with significant alliance of the resources needed to do the job to protect the american people. the men and women of our military are here to protect this nation and overseas fighting for our ideals. including the good education, economic opportunities, safe communities committee efforts to support these goals would be hampered unless the civilian agencies also received a release from the tap. i had the privilege of fort
bragg north carolina and for many reasons including to give people a chance in this country not just to protect them from a foreign direct. by the way to our servicemembers and their families rely on many of the services provided by the department of the agencies soldiers and their children benefit from that program. the amount of research can chivington to posttraumatic stress and brain injuries to provide healthcare for retirees and disabled individuals.
parents including military parents with children. those department and agencies also need to receive employment services transition services and housing assistant. not only is this a function of burial to support their regular to support our national security is also tied to our security. there's a disconnect between our nations security and many other factors. education of future military force, where will we get the
skills in chair training and expertise if we are under investing in basic education? we need to keep the pressure on for a permanent solution. they have to be eliminated or increased in proportionate to equal amounts of spending. let me again emphasize we are not taking away these funds. we are simply saying what makes a great deal of sense, until we have an approach that allows us to provide and invest in the economic health of the nation than these funds will be reserved. once we do that, then
automatically all the funding becomes available. we have talked some both sides for years now about the need to resolve the dca. yet we still see frustrations. every chief of service said the number one priority was to end sequestration. it by steps the issue and we can no longer do that. we have to move forward to resolve these issues. issues. the legislation i propose recognizes the need of these resources and the overarching issue. unless we are able to respectively moderate economic
on this bill. i believe it goes in part to the most important question we face which is how do we essentially provide for the defense of the nation? how to we invest in our people so we will continue to be strong? and i think if we don't provide this type of mechanism then we will be missing and blocking ourselves into a room that will leave us less secure and less productive and less strong as a nation in the future. let me remind you that the main purpose of the bill is to authorize funds for military
activity. we have to begin this appropriation process or recognize that they will not help us going forward and we must move to modify or appeal it. i will close by simply saying if we continue these caps forward on military readiness, our national defense in our long-term needs should be reflected in a transparenty in the bank, provide the contingency fund that doesn't turn things upside down and make our contingency funding really, the heart of the bill in some respects. we have to work and make sure that every federal agency can benefit because every federal
agency contributes to the country. we need to begin this dialogue and move forward. the sooner the better. >> tonight on c-span2 on national general forum on the rising cost of college tuition. economists discuss the effects of federal reserve monetary. then later a senate debate on the defense budget and funding on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. >> on our next washington junior we will talk to. president obama's strategies will be discussed on a rack in syria. later as part of our spotlight on magazines series he will talk about his release and peace.
you can join us by phone or on facebook and twitter. >> the new congressional directory with color photos of every senator plus filing contact information and district maps, a foldout map of capital fill, and a look at congressional committees. order your copy today. through the c-span online store.org. >> next education undersecretary ted mitchell. under the new act and obama's plan to make the first two years of community college free.
this is from a forum on college host. it's just over two hours. >> i'd like to welcome all of you here today and those of you watching the live stream. this event is made possible by the gates foundation and the women's foundation. we would love for you to share your comments and questions via facebook and twitter. if you have a question just go
ahead and line up and please state your name and organization. we also are taking questions via twitter and you can use the # ask mj. if you haven't already please download the app and you can learn about our program. we will be using that moving forward. sixty years ago pres. lyndon johnson signed the higher education act into law with the goal of making college more affordable and more assessable for students. what reforms and innovations are needed? here's a brief overview of the event which features two keynote speakers. first secretary of education ted
>> good morning everyone. it looks like we've got quite a good group. thanks to the national journal the gates foundation for inviting me to be a part of this. the next american series is important because we need more than ever strategic thinking and action as we attack the unprecedented challenges and opportunities presented by this legislation. we are redefining what colleges
how much it costs and how much it should cost. it's important to take note of what happened in the last century. both laws advance the advanced the idea and made a commitment to equal access to a quality education is a moral imperative and a civil right in america. when they signed it in 1965 they called it a promise that leadership of our country believe it is the obligation of our nation to provide and permit and assist every child born in these borders to receive all the education that they can take. since then it has been our mission to make that promise real for every student. we've made progress but the task has never been more urgent and our work is far from complete. president obama captured the
urgency of higher education for all with the goal that he set soon after taking office that america will again have the best educated population and the most competitive works out force, measured in part by americans leading the way in postsecondary degrees and credentials. to achieve that goal we worked with partners at the national state, local and institutional level to strengthen the educational pipeline. we've been modernizing the teaching profession and making college affordability college quality and completion for all students a top priority. we look forward to deepening that in the conversations ahead i had on the higher education
act reauthorization. today thanks to the hard work of educators, families and communities that we have a high graduation with. the biggest gain is being made by low income, students of color and disability. the achievement gap has begun to close as we reach this historic milestone where the majority of our students in the educational system are now coming from minority communities. we can now equipped minority students with better skills to be prepared for college and later in life. administration has certainly tried they've increased the total aid available to students.
they've created tax benefits that add up to $12 billion of resources to families. as a result more are going to college than ever before. still despite that financing completion is complicated. especially for those new to the college experience, displaced workers, veterans, and working individuals. it is a result of opportunity and is an opportunity for us to think differently about higher education. families it can be hard to gauge what will be expected and secure the funds that will be needed. too often and for too long our
most honorable students end up with no degree and debt that can persist for years. this too has to change. why? well first and foremost this is a matter of principle. opportunity for everyone, that's the north star. this is also about the prosperity and never in our history has the ability to complete college exam been important for our national competitiveness. college, college, the ticket to the middle class must not become a ledger luxury good. there is good news.
we've seen reform on campuses and national networks. we need to bring these islands together to create an overall goal for the future. overall one of the best pieces of news is the consensus that the president said in this state of the union address, universal access to education extends from pre-k up until college. we need to set plans to increase college graduation rates. we are seeing more enrollment in high school programs and programs that ensure a seamless transition.
inspiring the administrations own ideas. we need a nonprofit and coalition effort to help meet the president's goals we need technology to both broaden and deepen and often lower costs for education. all of this suggests that this is a hopeful time for higher education. managing change at this particular time in a way that benefits all students will take institutions, accreditors, nonprofits and congress and unprecedented in investment and
innovation. were innovating at the federal level. as you earn loan repayment policies they are trying to make the task to repay loans possible. were using loans to find out what works for adult learners and adopt those processes nationwide. we are continuing to hold institutions accountable to prove the value of their programs and protect students and to safeguard the taxpayers. since taking office, the presidents objectives for higher
education, recognizing both the opportunities and challenges facing our nation have been consistently aimed at meeting the north star goal of quality education for everyone. we must ensure affordability and improve outcome. we have set the course for this effort working with congress whenever possible to make sure that we take action to make continued progress to make sure all americans have the knowledge and skills they need to grow our economy and strengthen our nation. some of this work was accomplished without funding but more work remains that requires legislative action to protect what we have achieved together and make some key changes to improve the overall programs. we hope that the conversations provides congress with the moment momentum to move forward.
we have a commitment to equalizing college opportunities. the laws scope has broadened to assist us to dance with a variety of postsecondary degrees. the administration has been focusing on the investments needed to ensure college remains affordable for the middle and low income families. the kinds of reforms that make it possible for all americans to have the opportunity to succeed. this has meant supporting innovation and breakthroughs in cost and quality that can accommodate 21st-century learners. we must do all 21st
century learners. we must do all we can to build a better and more stable financial aid system that allows individuals to afford college and manage their debt. the subsidies paid to bank that make loans. he wanted to remove banks from the program and have college provide loans with capital directly from the federal government. this resulted in $60 million in savings that we were able to reinvest in aid for other students. finally, all of these efforts must be built for strong accountability to help all colleges improve we need to ask more from states and institutions and accreditors. we also need to protect the significant accomplishment we've
made to reinforce program integrity and crooning gainful employment regulation and in powering the departments. this is where we need congress to act. we want to work with congress to focus on making college more affordable financial aid more assessable and loan repayment easier. a key step toward that is to make two years of community college as high school was a century ago. we need to reinvest in higher education. this means strengthening the program to make sure grants keep pace to afford college costs. we want to make fast for filing simpler, easier and earlier. the president's budget proposal proposed a single better and
more simple way. building on the work that we have done we believe we are putting in the hands of students, families and the public, tools that will help us all understand how the investment we are making in higher education is paying off in society. we believe these tools will help promote strong student outcomes and colleges to improve their performance. as we continue to push for stronger accountability we also want to reward schools and encourage innovation and to help struggling colleges improve. for example through the pell bonus program. additionally we can build on efforts such as the administrations first in the world program that allows for the scaling of new
evidence-based intervention. finally, and believe it or not i am interested in starting our conversation, let me close by saying we are looking forward to working with congress and you'll hear from mr. alexander on these important issues that are interestingly both timeless and timely as we look to take advantage of the opportunities provided and the increasing changing atmosphere. college credentials, atmosphere. college credentials, higher earning, better quality of life for individuals and a stronger safer, more prosperous nation. we simply can't have economic immobility. now more than ever our work
that needs to modernize and expand postsecondary education must ensure that america stays true to our founding values and keeps faith with everyone for the dreams of a better life. our work must help foster a more prostitute prosperous and inclusive society to preserve a vibrant future. thank you so much for listening and now it's in your hands. >> thank you for that terrific to her to to her. i do want to start i do want to start with something you touched on. we are 50 years since lyndon johnson traveled to his own elmo martyr in texas to sign the higher education act.
he was planning to sign the bill outside but he had swept as a janitor as a student and when he said we will leave here this morning i want you i want you to go back and save your children in your chair grandchildren and those who come after you and tell them we made a promise to them that we have open the road and pulled the gates down and the way is open. we expect them to travel it. how do you think if we are assessing 50 years later that the fundamental goal that the president laid out for us how would he grate us on achieving that? >> i think he would rate us at a
b+. we have opened the gates far more broadly for college goers. one can look at that in terms of the number of african-americans or the number of latinos. they just released results in the last month that show that hispanic 12th graders are now more likely for the first time more likely to attend time, more likely to attend college than their anglo peers. i think all of that is very good news. students face learning differences coming to college. fundamentally i think we have begun to think of college not as an experience for bright shiny 18 -year-olds headed off to four years at an institution, but thinking of college as a lifelong experience for people who are looking for ways to retrain re- skill ups gil, new
is psychologically a huge barrier for far too many students. and the third leg, i think affordability from the institutional point of view with a national policy perspective since the beginning of the great recession to either the federal government and tried to make them more a sensible but the research is pretty clear that the bulk of the burden has fallen on families to the low income
students. there are a couple of reasons they have awful trade-offs of the great recession and i think anytime a state legislature has to choose between basic social services and benefits and higher education there has to be a discussion and there are decisions frankly i worry more about the investment coming out of the great recession and there is the sense that it did not break. the problem is baja it is cracking and people are under the edifice. >> you made a good deal of news yesterday the colleges
that declared bankruptcy last month that could cost 3.5 billion if all students received that debt relief. what is that authority and what about this president the you have established? >> and we have statutes and regulations that determine those conditions that students can claim to assess the claims. the decision renounced yesterday applies to one portion of the students that were enrolled in specific programs where we have established that corinthian had falsified place their
rates so they depended on those they have a claim in this case under a california state law but they can also bring it directly to us. so our decision yesterday took that subset of the population and invited them with their student loans. >> what are the administration is top goals? >> we are still working through our own document to engage with the house and senate to get good collaboration on that. but we certainly want to simplify the loan programs and that access to the
federal financial aid system to protect the pell grant program to make sure that the purchasing power remains high. >> so with your idea is, of one is the idea to get colleges and universities to have a sheriff risk for the loans that go into default. >> i think we have always thought of colleges and universities need to share in accountability for outcomes so risk sharing is one of the ideas in the overall bucket that we are keenly interested to engage
as pardners. >> a thing in particular? day regulate the accreditation and process to become the accredited institution with federal stallone's? >> the president in the "state of the union" also addressed this and i think what we regard as the twin problems of accreditation and one is that we think there needs to be more rigor in the accreditation process and also more flexibility. so we are working on a set of proposals. >> day you have a and advisory commission? is a tour the altman solution? >> we are still working it out.
>> with two years of free community college you receive a pretty stormy reception. are you tweeting it to get off the runway? >> bell legislative process is one but at the same time we have been heartened by these conversations at dulles local levels and we want to tackle this so we have had a series of those conversations. so we have been very encouraged with the spread of the idea that in the
21st century universal public support just started pre-k to go deep into college that is the way we will continue to provide access and create opportunity and have the affordability question as well. >> so with that discussion and there is a lot of focus to simplify the income based repayment system and you talked about that. those say that discussion is to narrow at unprecedented levels of debt we hear the drumbeat there should be access to debt-free higher education and that should be the goal and we should find a way to finance that. what is the administration think of that goal is that a reasonable or counterproductive?
>> it certainly is on the table so we are talking about thinking about it. rethink affordability does not necessarily end up at zero so there is a lot of distance to be made up from where we are and zero to make sure we are focused on that. >> you talk about those unintended consequences is that what you are suggesting ? >> honestly i have not thought enough about it. >> that we have significantly see an increase in spending but yet debt continues to rise so is there a treadmill of there are more federal aid? direct that is why it is important as we think about the american college promise
proposal one of the key elements is the hideous those states would maintain funding levels so there isn't that type of policy going on. and we do think that the state's need to do more and the federal government is not in that position. >> on a positive side mostly public institutions do interesting things to use the data to improve the completion rates such as like arizona state or florida international or central florida. what do you find promising? what can you do to encourage more institutions? >> you mentioned a few of
them better very encouraging in addition to the work of the individuals with university of lyons has gathered together a large public universities not only working on individual institutions to innovate and improve how they can work together but in addition to that there are states experimenting with performance based funding to help promote success to provide more resources to institutions from the first-generation students. >> if you want to start lining up so was there ruling in your favor? >> we are on track to go
into effect we are interested in how that turns out that we're doing the work to crunch the numbers and they will be reporting the numbers. >> the chairman has been very critical to expect congress to stop it? >> no prediction of. [laughter] any indication in privately they would try to block this? >>. [laughter] we have not heard that. >> the department web site says it is available for entering the 2015 school year. >> as most of you know, in december we put out the framework document asking for comments and we got a lot.
so we have been working off of those comments and running models to look at our own data and our own tools and we feel we are on track. we're still on the timetable to provide to students and the world before the beginning of the 2015 academic year. >> will there be other legislation? does that supersede we we're doing? >> i don't think so. the administration takes the position transparency is very valuable and more information in the hands of consumers is a good thing. >> if you want to line up for questions but you mentioned there is a mistake before. they have the idea of the on-line freshman your you pay only if you pass the
final and the thought is ultimately with half the cost of of full load of courses that is of positive experiment does that lead to the two-tier educational system for those affluent students? >> i think that is a concern. but backing up a step i am very excited by the experimentation and going on with the delivery models their business models their education and gets the bad reputation there is a lot and the job for the institutions and philanthropic partners is to
do that type of evaluation we would need to answer the question. to be cheaper but not cheap and -- cheapened arborvitaes a it to be rigorous first in the world program with $50 billion for a project that seeks to innovate and we want to be sure we do that evaluation to make sure there are not unintended consequences. >> does anybody want to ask a question? >> i am with "congressional quarterly" and i would like to ask about leadership at the department. a la cite the assistant secretary of post secondary education had acting
secretary since 2013 but that obama withdrew the nomination that was pending. but i want to know about that dash and what you see happening and how important that is in the discussion as to move forward with these conversations. >> it is no secret we have been frustrated by the inability to confirm a number of the key appointments and confirmations have ben slow and we would hope congress would understand the need to have a full squad on the field as we move through the next two years. >> one other thing that is over the horizon but not immediate but with the policy center a few weeks ago arguing that looking at
the endowment of the private university per student it exceeds the public appropriation in the same states. they have a limited if you look at harvard it translates into a subsidy of $48,000 per student per characters out the other day and had the donation from one donor receiving $350 million donation from another. also this century foundation has talked about it so taxing above a certain level for them to offset the tax tax, have you looked at the issue the way the endowments are exacerbated?
>>. >> that is interesting and may need to keep in mind the broad diversity of higher education and just the private and not-for-profit sector with a endowments there is such a range we need to be careful of those conclusions. that said, one of the things we have seen is the institutions with the very large endowments already on their own have taken up the cause helping first-generation students to create income muffles threshold below which students have packages or free tuition and altogether.
one of the problems is that information has not been broadly available. so to understand as a student my income ranges $60,000 harvard education compared to university of michigan that we need to crack that open and we think some light will help the problem. >> on the other hand, look at the most important sign of the workforce and there is the enormous increase that the vast majority of those students have been channeled into those institutions with the open access for your college of the most selective schools are as white today with their student body as 20 years ago and they give the most resources with the best
outcomes but ultimately is higher education in developing into the two-tier system at the risk rather than breaking down these divisions of society? >> i do think it is diverse and we have to keep our eye on the problem and challenged those the the eight institutions and reward them when they do more. the second social science researcher of enormous significance we have to double down the education problem man to we have to think probably about the whole range of subsidies from a variety of different sources. >> looking at that question of the public subsidies. as the part of the overall
accountability as a nation to use the tools that we have to hold them accountable and reward them we have to look at the whole range of subsidies. >> when you think about this tracking is it ultimately the answer to be prayer the increasing those resources available better under resource like community colleges or to find ways to get more first generations? >> if you look at the bulk of students of all stars go they go to comprehensive coalesces read need to invest where the students are.
>> we are here at the end of graduation season with 2 million people will receive a college degree or certificate they have worked on over a period of several years. let's congratulate our graduates. they're accomplishments are perot when nearly three-quarters are not the traditional student attending residential college four years full time after high-school. the majority juggled life and jobs will they were working to get their degree. nearly one-third was a first of their family to go to college which means they could not draw on the usual family support to navigate the complexity of higher education. nearly one-quarter have attended colleges along the way more than two-thirds graduate and with that more
than $1 trillion a student at out there today that is crushing those in the 40 percent that a tent college but did not complete their degree the so-called nontraditional students represent the majority of america today and they are america's heroes. but as they walk across the stage tour except their diploma i am thinking about 800,000 more of their fellow students who began with them in college but will not make it this far. 40 percent of students to begin june not complete their degree. we have to do better. our economy depends on it with the urges to need more college-educated by 2025
will require education and at the current rate colleges and universities with a shortfall of at least 11 million workers for the a geeks' amongst us with the growth rate with productivity and a mood here knows a college university that aspires its degree production of 4 percent per year? there is another reason but in this country college education is a decade to do get a job to volunteer success in college is a dividing line in a way that
it produces privilege only those that go to the half of the income distribution will complete a degree by age 24 almost 90 percent of their peers are in the top quarter will want to finish their degree the economic development there needs it in a sustainable way but the good news to have success for all students over the past decade with those innovations that secretary mitchell alluded to when in the two in four year colleges that increasing the rates improving the way to
launch over the highly structured to agree to use technology to support grey faculty to get a personalized education in ways to pay attention and to do quality that comprehend diversity with their efforts around the profile. so impressive is that body of evidence under the high impact practices there is no if the rates are above-average. no excuse of going after the 4% compound annual growth rate. and to close the attaining cap have is why not.
not batting cage the reality is that we share the same objective that our partners in the various sectors have expressed. we need a more affordable and equitable and high-quality post secondary education system with the attainment rates that would significantly improve our economic and social well-being. i like everything bad day and had to say about cost and affordability we appreciate of leadership from the gates foundation from the data systems but what i would like to do is offer a few rows observations. one of the things said david tells us is it needs more capacity the demand for
talent is growing ever stronger but we just cannot serve the number of students that we need to we need to find better ways to serve more students and to serve them better. our conversation around regulation the play is an essential role to protect the rights of students you should be at the center but the goal should not be about reducing the burden on the institution. in fact, institutes should not be at the center of the debate. students should the regulation conversation to reduce the barriers to innovation because those in it -- are one element getting in the way of greater student success. we'll be necessary to focus on three areas. the first is to create and
expand transparent pathways to credentials to look at the wide array of providers to experiment with new ways for students to earn credentials to direct federal funds to those sister -- serve the students best next to assure that colleges affordable transparent and aligned with the detail man goals especially for low income and underserved populations it should be easily accessed with a wide variety of education providers and it should measure quality to measure student learning with new and existing for alligators must be able to assess quality based on student learning publicly available information will
protect students and taxpayers against waste fraud and abuse higher education is at a critical juncture i have been around for a while now and i first worked on the reauthorization and i played the role to some degree in every reauthorization -- reauthorization and since then. in my view nine is as consequential as the next new technologies with competency based learning to changes to the demographics have created major opportunities as well as challenges. the new legislation must be yes for were thinking as a student population it seeks to serve. the stakes are high and we will have to move quickly it feels like the current law is designed for the landscape.
when it was first passed in 1965 america was the unquestioned world leader in post secondary education ever since then we have failed in that space but now we are not so sure. and other nations have passed us. innovation is taking place in ways we did not anticipate and the world has changed. to be clear the world is not waiting for us to pass this reauthorization is moving ahead of us. technology is moving ahead of us beyond the scope to have a tremendous impact it is a critical part of what defined the success but he your things are different and we must change to reflect that new reality.
[inaudible conversations] [applause] good morning. i looked over the list of attendees to see the higher education people ended reminded me of my days at the university of tennessee while i was president of the institution and i learned humility very rapidly. of my first day their faculty member said
mr. alexander welcome to the campus you seem so excited and you remind me of clark that was a very nice compliment. how is that? >> you came and left the same way. i respect the job that does it you do the reporting to georgetown is 5 million jobs short of by 2020 of people who have the proper prost secondary skills. what do we do about that? that is a question. we had done quite a bit about 5% of americans have a college degree and a 1965 with a higher education act
passed for the first time 10 percent have a college degree and today it is 35% so we have made some progress in many would argue we have the best system in the world to have more people lined up to go from other countries. i believe that quite by accident with the gi bill for veterans to allow them to choose any institution of their choice we have lots of choice and competition in with 6,000 institutions that have created the best system and think how different that is with the market place with kindergarten through 12th. then i will sit down to talk about this. clear out the jumble of red tape that is regulating higher education. number to stop telling
students they cannot afford college because most of them can. and more steps to make college affordable more than they should but four years ago we ask the distinguished group of academics to give specific recommendations how to reduce the regulatory over burden they gave us 59 recommendations vanderbilt hired a consulting group how much it caused the university with those rules and regulations in one year $150 million this is $11,000 per student. some of you know about
this it is called the fafsa. testimony says to questions would do a the president could think of 30 questions rigo need me to release an army of people to help them choose among the colleges and the president said he thinks the most 1500's students this said because of the complexity of the form so we have of fastback that would make that simpler that is why we bush like to do for many of them fill out there junior year also to simplify the loan repayment form but this report that i mentioned says that everyone
of our 6,000 higher education institutions gets a letter or guidance from the u.s. department of fat -- education every work day. the academy of sciences has the groups that's 42 percent with research on the administrative tasks and every governor knows the federal medicaid mandates would go to higher education so that is something we will try to do but second what i said the other day about chattanooga that politicians should stop telling students they cannot afford college but if you don't believe that but i would suggest
meet nearly 40 percent did not so another 2% there is a telegram to they don't have to pay back so two years of college for every low income student in the country. the average bill grant is 30 to 60 per year. tennessee to the college now pays for every student what about public for year universities the average tuition is $9,000. 40% have a pilgrimage. university of tennessee almost all have the state grant called of hope scholarship up the 4500 for
juniors and seniors so a for university is within reach for most students but what about expensive colleges with the private tuition and fees this of the georgetown university president the other day they figure how much they can afford as the student to work 15 hours a week and then the university pays the rest to help them pay $60,000 a year at georgetown so for many students feel the eight universities to be available some people still need money and you can borrow that student loans are taxpayers generous enough for
colleagues for a good defense below dash investment was made to answer this question is to compare the student loans while was 25 years old i bought my first car and i had to get an auto loan the bank made my father cosine because it had no assets or credit and said i had to pay a basket in three years. taxpayers will loan up 2/6 thousand. your credit rating does not matter the interest rate is 4.2% this year. adds a fixed-rate. you may pay the loan back using no more than 10 percent of your disposable income and if not paid back after 20 years it is forgiven. is that a better investment
then you're on a loan? your idol loans depreciate the college board estimates you will earn 1 million more dollars is it too much borrowing? according to the federal reserve the average debt per student is $27,000 almost exactly the average of a car loan in the united states total amount of outstanding loans is a lot of money but i don't hear anyone suggesting we have to ready model loans and is only 4% those that our gradual loves of lawyers and business people and those that have elected to do that. but the cost is up with those in default and to make
it easier. >> we actually make it hard for colleges to do and at and it to use the. grant year round for the simplified the application forms. i described a very generous with those to share in the risk of lending to students. within clear out the jungle book for the students to borrow more than what they can pay back.
i believe politicians think that they cannot afford to go to college but let's get this to the loans and the amount of federal aid even if you borrow $27,000 with a four year degree your student loan is roughly equal to your auto loan. and the degree is a far better investment for you and for our country. [applause] that i will make that much worse. [laughter] >> but to cut the red tape
were colleges said universities how did these rank among your priorities? >> first i am very fortunate that she is the ranking democrat to produce a bill from though a child left behind. it is not just my problem occurs as well. to produce for the committee a draft bill the joan go red tape and we will be introduced the legislation that could be part of the simplifying the fast that.
-- elizabeth warren barrasso with senator murray. >> she suggested that to me. i took her advice then we will try again. >> with that simplification with the overall bill. also to simplify the student aid to expect that to be part of the streamlining but to simplify a fed easing is saying is to fill it out ted, jr. of high-school but the lead out than report
what the tax liberation is before you file the tax return if it is earlier you have more time to shop around we want to explore colleges those that share in the rest when they participate in the student loan program now we will say let's go to to. and then to pay a back over 10 years or upn payback with no more than 10 percent of your disposable income. and it is forgiven after 20 years. >> the idea but what are some of the ways they could?
accreditation more than anything else just to give them more flexibility maybe that is true but i can tell you about a student aid and then i can tell about the regulation. >> to provide students and is there any advance on that? >> a good reaction the problem i have been authorized eight times since 1965 with the of well-meaning senators and bureaucrats here is the clause is regulations and stack them up - - stack of up the stack was already as tall as i was it the new
would double the stack that is why we need of good writer for someone to take a bunch of stuff to press it into the language that we do understand. the federal government does not do that very well. day university of texas has a terrific website to find out all sorts of things are a college costed job placement and what you will make if you borrow this much but the goal is to simplify to make it clear that they understand what they're getting into. >> key has a point but the
pell grant you can keep so keep that clear. i have talked to elizabeth warren a few times she said her goal was a one page because that 22 pages it doesn't do anything for the consumer because you signed the bottom of every page without knowing what it is. so a lot of good clear one pages. >> the administration is on track to do its own college system you said i believe the attempt will fall. >> i don't think they have the capacity. i used to work there. [laughter] we have 6,000 colleges and
universities each now has a different name than harvard i don't care what they think there are facts and figures that consumers can find out about to make their own judgments. i think they're likely to be misleading. but i am pretty the appropriations bill into the department. we need to do a very simple calendar of every rule that they were expected to follow so you can said that college to say january 4th, a generator fit the have to do this they have been working seven years. >> if they do would you try? >> yes. >> i don't take there will
be able to do what they're receptive go cry -- such as the outcry a. now the senators are reading to take amendments. >> so they have many opportunities. [laughter] spread the higher education act you're also critical of employment regulations which is one of a the court challenges to stay on track this summer will you try to block those and wide you object? >> because it is horrendously complicated and only applies to one sector of the education sector to take that broad incentive to encourage a institutions to keep costs down so it is a