tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 13, 2016 8:00am-10:01am EDT
they have to balance the book. states have mixed obligations. they want to educate their sit currency but they also want to keep the best and brightest at home because they are competing with the other 49 states. so the federal government in many ways has the purest thing. they want to get low income students who are capable through. let's not throw out the current system. let's work on it together. let's work towards 2064, instead of 1964. >> thank you, guys. gentlemen, we'll start with your team first. dr. alexander, if we were to funnel additional aid directly to the states have them make decisions how to disperse that, how would you make colleges subject to the winds of state legislatures? >> one thing has been constant. i've been a president in kentucky and california and now in louisiana and worked in illinois and wisconsin. in virtually every state our
state legislators have told me, i, i told them, why do you take the medicaid money? they said because we don't want to leave any federal dollars on the table. and that is the biggest influence that i can see with legislators. now some with political aspirations have not done that because they have said, i've got future political aspirations but, but, within a couple of years, they go after that money and i can tell you that louisiana did not take the medicaid money until the new governor got in. it was the first act that he did. that we've been leaving and millions and millions of federal dollars on the table. states, highway funds, why do they invest in highways before they invest in higher education? why do they invest in medicaid before they invest in higher education? why did land grant universities get created? federal government gave lands under partnership states would have to do following things which would create the greatest
public university system in the world which resulted from that. so legislatures, state legislatures, they, one of their top motivations, incentives is whether or not they're going to leave federal money on the table. and i'll point out one other thing about the '72 act. in 1972 when pell grants, beog was passed there was also consensus that following the pell grant student, the cost of education allowances were passed by congress. what was supposed to happen was $2500 would follow those student to those institutions, to the institutions, to provide the programing for the low-income student. cost of education allowances were passed at same time pell grants were. they have never ever been funded a penny. so institutional aid was recognized. institutional programing was needed but it was never funded by the federal government. >> would you like to respond? >> only thing i would add we do need to learn the lessons of the
affordable care act but important not to learn too much, right? they just passed, and the accountability provisions in there are still actually pretty intense. there is a lot of things states and schools are expected to do. doesn't appear to be a ton of resistance. not a lot of states are saying this will not happen because feds are acting too much. affordable care act is one particular example, when you look at particular policies when federal government uses power to leverage state behavior, it works. >> i just want to point out a couple of things, just quickly on these points. one, i think that the medicaid and highway examples are particularly instructive, vis-a-vis state funding of higher education the way it is currently funded. not state student aid, not need-based student aid but direct appropriation. medicaid is need based program. it is means tested. in state tuition not means-tested, right? so the federal government has
incentive to insure that states spend more on a need-based program because it is further targeting -- it is targeting more dollars to the low-income people. highways, and king would disagree with this conception, highways are pure public good. people need them to get around, right? higher education doesn't serve everybody in the state the way a highway does, right? it doesn't serve large swaths of the low-income population. these arguments about federal-state partnerships that use medicaid and highways in particular they're not really great analogies because higher education is not the same kind of service. >> sarah did you have -- >> i think the original question you asked is so important. because i represent private non-profit colleges and obviously there is concern about this, what a proposal for free public higher ed or whatever version of you look at would do for those institutions but i often say, i would be even more afraid if i was a public college
because the most of the proposals that are out there do not come free for public colleges. they come with incredible controls that i think will take away the innovation and creativity and the ability of the public colleges to pivot. we have a very competitive marketplace out there. private -- most competition is regional privates compete with regional publics and national publics compete with national privates. that is where students are choosing among and between. and there are a lot of accountability measures that people expect and even more that i think state legislators would add or feds would add i don't think will lead to higher quality public higher education. or lead the ability of public higher ed to get revenue streams that they will still need to fill in. >> so, continuing with this theme, if you are for preserving
current system of student aid how would you address student disinvestment and increasing prices? how would you tackle that. >> increasing prices is very complex because it's a whole section of the economy. let me take on something simpler on the disinventment. >> we should consider what would maintenance of effort look like if we had a lot of money out there for the states to partner with the federal government on pell grants? but you did have maintenance of effort in there just didn't include state and need-based aid but included state aid to institutions to public institutions to private institutions whatever the maintenance of effort is. that part of it, the student aid part did work in the stimulus bill. what didn't work is the net price for low-income students. that is where i would begin. >> i agree with that. this is area of common ground. i know president alexander
written about ssig and testified bit as a working federal partnership, federal-state partnership. and this is an area i think we could agree that a federal effort to incentivize states to invest more in need-based aid that is given to students is, could be a workable arrangement. again it allows for targeting to the students that we want to help the most from the federal perspective. and, but, but to point out that is a very different model than giving money to states, then states divvy up to give to institutions to lower tuition prices for everyone in the state. >> would you like to respond? >> i think it is wonderful listening to nicu talk about maintenance of effort that is amazing. in '05, 06, 07, you guys were completely against it. terry was completely against it. you did everything to stop it. i think it is wonderful you have come this far to realize how
important it is to encouraging states. that is exactly what we had the fight and accountability. we're not afraid of more accountability. i need 2/3 vote from my legislature to increase a fee. i'm not worried about federal accountability. i need more federal accountability, more federal regulation to stop corinthian colleges from stealing public money and student aid grants n california the call aid program, a kid from the united states of america gets $13,000. a kid went to long beach,st state got 5500. think about how your voucher system works in your own states. these are not pure need-based programs. ohio has a need-based programs that goes only to private universities. not public universities. we're giving them without the regulations necessary. i need more help from the federal government on accountability to encourage money to go to right places to remain affordable and remain committed to low income students
include trinity universities in washington, that have 55% low income kids who are shortchanged because they can't continually raise their institutions the colleges in kentucky, agree with me. have nothing but low income kids can't charge anything but don't get help through the voucher-based program. we're very much in line with this maintenance of provision. we need more federal help to tie $170 billion in federal assistance to state behavior, not just 350 million. which is the only part tied to state behavior. >> so, i'll just start out by saying yes, i agree expanding the state student incentive grant program, something like that, federal state matching program for federal aid is great place to start but we can't just keep trying to figure out how to cover price increases. this is the spiral we've been trying to cover through all different types of financial aid. whatever left over goes to debt. we've been trying everything we think of to feed it, how do we cover price increases.
we can't keep having college policy do that. state student set of grant programs, great, as long as there is change in institutional behavior at at same time. as long as institutions are strongly incentivized to use own funds to fund low income students. as long as tuition increases are moderate to what families afford to pay. for instance, i don't think tuition should increase more than median family income increased for state that year. that seems reasonable. between the state and institutions then you have to figure out without that tuition how will you make it work? some combination of increased state funding, efficiency. but we can't just keep on assuming we'll figure out a way to cover these prices every time. that is not going to work. >> so affordability and completion very much tied. question for both sides, start with you guys work. how would you use state directed aid to increase completion rates and quality of higher education? >> it's not one thing.
it is about 100 things. it is campus culture. i've been at two campuses. we're working at third one right now where our graduation was 20 points above our predicted graduation rate. at call stat long beach 50% and 20% undocumented students tell us they're undocumented we're educating. grat wages rate up from 42% to 60%. we're not afraid of performance. in fact we testified two days ago to our state legislature, do one of two things. reward performance and institutions doing what they're doing with low income and all populations or number one, let us go, set us free. let us run, we know our markets. we can do neither. we're not allowed to do either. and what happens, we end up, public higher education serving 80% of the students in this country. the scale of this nation, and all populations are the institutions that are being put out of business.
in current model. >> so the first place to start, always remember that you can't complete unless you get in. that of course we need to worry about both. think there is huge issues with college completion. we know from the research if you change the price of higher education by $1000 you will get 3% more students enrolling and impact bigger from low income students. we know that, i'm a researcher. that is one of the things we know best. i wish we had a lot of other findings like that. we can say that with great degree of certainty. what do we know about impact designing financial aid for the purposes of making students complete? we don't know nearly as much. if we try to do something where you provide incentives for students to complete certain number of credits, try to restructure to get student incentives to structure right way i'm very skeptical of those efforts. research base is not nearly as clear on those. seems funny to me styles we're hesitant to use we know this works. start with getting them in.
and start with specifics of how campus works improving and there is exciting research development and education and restructuring first couple years of college but start with what works. we know getting more financial aid means you can go. from there we need to do a lot more to figure out how students can complete. >> any response. >> one thing, building on will's point what we know about financial aid. i do agree, i did a book on how the unedited volume how evidence base is not nearly as thick as it needs to be. i will refer people to a paper by scott clayton future of children, what do we know from research on financial aid? one of the lessons they pull out, incentive based grants with benchmarks, they're encouraged to meet academic benchmarks with more grant funding have positive effects. studies are not as many as we'd like. for instance, one is that
west virginia promise scholarship, scott layton studied this in paper, students had to meet particular benchmarks, she found it increased on time completion rates by scholarship students by seven percentage points. it was incentive. as soon as student reached fourth year, at deck i can effect the didn't matter incentive went away. that is one thing. second point we have this problem i think in institutional improvement and i'm guessing dr. alexander would agree and will as well, we're focused on cost, up-front costs of doing things to help more students succeed and we're not focused on cost effectiveness of implementing things that would help students succeed. to me i would much rather see state legislators and federal legislators be, discuss cost effectiveness and by that i mean, it may cost more up front to implement intervention but it is much more, far more students are successful the cost per
outcome, cost per degree goes down. productivity increases. to think about how can you think about building that kind of idea into your performance-based funding schemes, right? as opposed to just doing it on the basis of our outcomes and minimize the cost up front. i think this is conversation we need to have. very much supportive of that. >> first of all i don't want to miss the opportunity to have kumbayah moment on moe. back to moe, the public fought us on including need-based aid, i'm not saying you did. that was part of the background battle f we protect need-based aid and protect all state funding we might be able to work something out here. but on the completion question, i agree with will, it is very, very complex. i agree with dr. alexander, it depends, different institutions will have different cultures but different students will have different issues too. for some it might be lack of money. for some it might be lack of
academic preparation. we have great alarm clock example i don't know if everyone is familiar with, but some students making sure there is alarm clock and someone is tracking them to get them out of bed into school and into class. that can make a huge difference. this multiple solutions, we're learning a lot about this since we had a federal focus on completion which i think is really positive. whatever we do i think the biggest mistake we have had in the policy debate that has got own more and more dramatic over the last 10 years, is that we have talked too much about penalties and not enough about incentives. when you put out penalties you instantly start to run into debates about states rights and institutional autonomy and i will never will find a positive solution. i think we need more conversations like this potential on how we could move forward.
nicu has had a long-standing proposal we see as part of a completion agenda. we call it loan flex and pell flex. the idea we set some sort of a federal thing. we'll give you $35,000 in pell grants to get through. if you get through faster, good for you, you're going to get your money sooner, so there is financial incentive and pathway to help people stay in and take as many of classes as they're capable of to get through as soon as they can. >> so i get the sense there are aspects of the current system that both of would you say are flawed and you already discussed a couple of them, but in addition to things like improving campus-based aid, what else would you do in order to correct some of the design flaws within the current student aid system? >> i would begin by saying i'm not sure they're design flaws. i think society continues to evolve and change and so we
always have to constantly update things. we learn lessons as we go. we'll learn a lot on completion as more and more schools have focused on it. if we want degree attainment to be goal we ought to set up certain amount of money, $35,000 of pell to get through. we have to put hard targets in there so people are not spending money swirling. that certainly would be one. i bring back in this partnership as i mentioned before i think we do need to bring states and institutions through incentives into a positive national conversation, which i think we all, we all do our parts but it's scattered. so i think incentives, incentives on students. incentives for institutions, incentives for states, there are certainly pieces of the federal formula, especially need analysis that constantly need to be tweaked and updated.
simplification of fafsa we could do. some of these issues are on the table. >> this is where i think again there is common ground. i agree with dr. alexander to suggest we need to hold colleges to higher standards. i think we need to hold all of them to higher standards. we need to make sure they have incentives to keep tuition low and enroll low income students. if i were, if he were entirely in favor preserving current system quote, unquote, would have a debate, i wouldn't have much to do all day, right? as anybody who has read my work knows that is not my position. sarah and i probably disagree with this especially on punishment side. i think we have to punish schools not doing right thing and some need to go out of business. we have written about the notion of setting stricter performance floor. setting restrictive performance floor about loan rates and above the performance floor, putting
schools on the hook for percentage of loans schools don't repay. that is something sarah and i could discuss after the fact. which i'm sure we'll have fun with. we actually have panel on this but sitting on opposite sides. these are the ways, we have to get incentives right and let institutions just think about how best they can reach those standards. >> i worked for seven years on the college report card, scorecard to get good information in parents and students hands. when i talk to them at orientation they want to know what our graduates are doing, not just how many turned away which is "u.s. news & world report." how well are they doing mid career? how well are they doing when they graduate? are they getting jobs or in debt or not in debt? we had to fight since 2006 to get our -- this was a fight against the for-profits and private partners but the privates fault us to put student indebtedness, report student
indebtedness. i can tell you that is one of the critical elements and issues parents raise when they talk to me. what are the students doing? we fought to get the college scorecard to put more information in the marketplace. the one reason the higher ed market voucher system doesn't work because there is no information for parents and students. we give them the same glossy brochures. we don't share with them what is happening at the end of the day. we know more about the cars we buy because of a blue book than we do about the colleges and universities that we invest for a lifetime in. and so we are very much in favor of more accountability and showing parents value for the dollar that they're investing. but we certainly would like the private sector and higher ed and washington not to fight us every step of the way to make this information available to students. this is vital, useful, and absolutely essential information for them to make the most important decision in their lives.
so accountability, we're not afraid of accountability. we fought to have more and more accountability. that is one reason why. corinthian colleges went out of business because they persuaded people to go to their institution and ended up with nothing afterwards. that is why many of these same institutions are milking our veterans blind. they come to me i used up my g.i. bill benefits at variety of these institutions that are getting public vouchers and g.i. bill vouchers, for worthless pieces of paper. and then they're asking for to us come up with scholarship help because they have had their g.i. bill benefits milked from them. this voucher system is far out of control. we want more accountability in it. we're not against student aid but we have to have institutional aid. a voucher to nowhere doesn't get you anything. a scholarship to nowhere won't get you anything. so we're not against student aid but we need to rebalance what we're doing to provide the
institutions who serve these students. >> will. >> one additional point to make there is an argument for kind of direct funding of students that says, well, if the institution, one institution isn't doing what they should and they don't have the right set of characteristics for that individual they can always take the voucher and go elsewhere. it is not much of a market for students. 50% of the students travel less than 14 mice to campus. 80% of the student travel less than 100 miles to campus. there are not that many campuses to most people. most students don't have that many choices. idea of a student based funding system will sort out market and induce institutional improvement is not borne out way most students attend colleges. there has to be something to force institutions available to students in local area to be better, push on them. use their own funding better and ensure that students who need that higher education can enroll
at the institutions that they have access to. >> the idea of accountability keeps coming up within this discussion and that is one of the key focuses of some of the presidential proposals around college affordability in this campaign season. are there any, what if any aspects of the proposals floated thus far could be beneficial to your position of how college aid should be dispersed or to your position? i'll let team b go first. >> sure. well, we have, i mean i think that if you kind of dig into hillary clinton's proposal a little bit, below the headline, she is looking a lot at debt. i think that is a very, very valid question to look at. she does not exclude the private non-profits from her proposal although she is not very clear on where they fit in. i think conversation we're
having, we're having a very rich conversation about debt anyway. some of it is overinflated. some of it with cost of loans is very, very valid to have. i think questions around that. are good to continue. how should we be having students repay. how long should students be repaying. those are good questions. >> it strikes me most of the plans, the plans that are of the remaining contenders very least -- >> there are plans, yes. >> in my private time i helped work on, it is out there in the ether somewhere, so go look it up. i think remaining plans are mostly focused on the cost and debt question which i think are there at the forefront of families minds, forefront of middle class family minds especially. but my concern they wave their hands mostly at issues of quality and completion and value. and i think you see that in both
the sanders and clinton plan. there is assumption i think that solving, that mechanically lowering tuition by more federal subsidies is going to mechanically race completion rates. to will's point i don't know we have any evidence that's true or compelling evidence that is necessarily true i should say. and, so i think, i would like to see more, a lot more on the how do we actually think about improving the quality of higher education and insuring that federal investment that we're getting a return on federal investment because students are completing credentials with labor market value. i don't think we've seen enough of that. hillary clinton's plan has pretty much everything in it so she does say a few things about that, but bernie sanders my recollection is not a whole lot. so i think that is a missing part of the conversation. >> the clinton plan has, has our federal partnership as a third leg to incentivize or to hold
states accountable. if you remember the beginning, at the beginning of president obama's administration when he gave the state of the union address, he said we're going to hold colleges and universities account accountable and hold states accountable. the college scorecard is about holding colleges and universities more accountable. what hasn't happened is the state part of it. that is part of senator clinton's plan is the state-federal partnership which we had the opportunity to work with them on. the interesting part about the accountability issue is marco rubio said something very interesting. he said when he was running that our accrediting bodies are like a cartel. we're the only oecd country in the world that allows private accrediting bodies to dictate where $140 billion, they don't get the eotc part, but $140 billion in student aid goes. you can't think of an institution that has not been,
that hasn't been reaccredited or accredited. everybody gets accredited. everybody has access to public money. that is why we can't control it. we tried to address the is spree issue in early the 0's when bill clinton and secretary long had opportunity to tackle it. we killed it. now we have problem so out of control we need greater accountability and the accrediting bodies have fallen flat on their face on this issue. when fast track university in fort lauderdale, fast track gets millions and millions in pell grants, and they hired exotic dancers as recruiters and admissions officers, then we've got an accountability problem. that is how the system works. that is why we a new system. >> so looking at the clinton and sanders i think they both recognize the same issues that i have really concerns me, is that, there is, federal
government has to start using leverage with the states to insure there will be changes in how states are funding and how institutions are behaving. one thing i can pick out as reservation about either of them, with the sanders plan there is this provision how the institutions have to spend their money, certain amount and certain type of faculty and so on. again i think that is where you get this kind of, i would agree overreach and exactly how these institutions are going to accomplish what we set out. i think it is better to set out goals, let institutions figure out some way to get there. specifying specific, essentially business models for institutions is too far in terms of setting up these plans. interesting thing with the clinton plan, and this is something that came up with new america as well, how much of an out would you allow states? do you allow states to refuse to participate and still federal government will come in and fund students. clinton plan includes that,
makes it obvious states might not do that and assume the federal government will pick up slack. new america said no way, you will get this money. you have to participate in the way we structure this. there is risks with either and tradeoffs with either i think that, but that is one of those key things i would point to as differences between the two. >> andrew? >> one of the things anybody doesn't mention, i should have, m remiss in not, free, making free big political idea, free college big idea. wouldn't surprise anybody in this room i disagree with that fundamentally. i think it is kind of a silly goal and not a goal that will lead to us efficient system where people who can pay, who can pay pay what they're able to pay. clinton plan is much better on this obviously. but you know, this notion we're somehow now going to be locked into this debate whether it should be free for everyone, universal free college for everyone or not over the next decade at least, now a litmus
test for particularly for democrats. i think it is a shame because i think we could have a much more productive debate about who pays what share, what is reasonable and so, you know, that's i think, where politics have made, have made it harder in some sense to have the policy debates we need to have. >> so one final question, we'll kick it off to the audience. if we go to system where additional aid would be directed to the states, how would privates, private institutions work in this? there are well-heeled private institutions not much of a concern. there are other hbcus are private have a huge pell population and trying to serve that population, how do we think about them in this overall kind of model? >> i could start. >> so this is one of the reasons why i do favor incenting the
money to the states and allowing states flexibility how to spend it because privates play a really different role in provision of higher education depending what states you're in. in some there has to be substantial state role in both funding and accountability for private institution because they educate so many students, new york and massachusetts examples of that. other states pretty small part of the sector. most of the institutions are pretty well-funded. may not need as much assistance and may not need relationship with the state. allowing flexibility at state level seems important important. >> keep in mind that private institutions have about 26% the students but they get about the 46% of all state student aid because a lot of it is price sensitive. if funds went into those programs they would benefit from this type of discussion. more importantly though, yesterday in the national
academy of science we released recommendations from the lincoln project. the lincoln project is about saving our public land grant universities and many hbcus are part of that who are on the edge of financial exigency. i will point out in louisiana and illinois. seen chicago state, southern and grambling in the same situation. this, we need to focus on salvaging and saving our public higher education institutions now. our per student expenditures at land grant research universities have grown in last 20 years from 21,000 to 29,000 per student. that seems good but our private peers have grown from 31,000 to 60,000 per student. that means faculty salary disparities. we're becoming, many are becoming training grounds for many private universities in this country because of per student expenditures and faculty salaries. we all know this. that was part of initiative and part of the purpose of the
lincoln project. so we really need to focus, the states are bowing out, our public universities are getting left and colleges are getting left with no resources, getting, talking about financial exigency in louisiana and illinois. under the current conditions. and you will see this more and more so in the coming years. so i would say that we need, we need to incentivize our states to make right decisions like we have in medicaid where money will be rewarded to the states for putting them into our institutions of which are the biggest losers today, compared to where we were 20 and 30 years ago. >> your response. >> yeah. i think it is a good question. of course i'm interested in the role of private non-profits. we have to remember that in seven states and district of columbia there are more pell students, not just by percentage, but more pell students in the private non-profit sector than in the public sector. even more state, more higher
percentage of in-state students are pell at private colleges. we have seven other states and the district of columbia where there are more total enrollments. so, and there is many, many private colleges have very efficient degree production for state taxpayers, for the small investment that the states might make. 3% of the state funding, 30% of the degrees. 2% of the state funding. 20% the degrees. i have those states listed. so we need both sectors to be part of the solution. i think all of the sectors benefit from each other. makes for richer, higher ed, higher ed thing. i also want to, do mention and take up one other point. nicu really pioneered the concept of some sort of a federal consumer piece.
easy to access federal consumer piece that was would sort of counter this "u.s. news & world report" problem we have. it is called ucan. it has been out for 10 years. land grants liked it so much they borrowed our first two pages. we gave it to them. let's get a universal system. the problem is the letter grade. we all shared that concern, a, b, c, d. they agreed it was impossible. we think the scorecard they came out with needs more improvement but it's a good start. >> so we'll open this up to audience questions. please keep in mind to keep your questions to 30 seconds. anyone who would like to ask our panel questions? >> sure some of you heard the bennett hypothesis, raising direct student aid essentially
allows colleges to raise their tuition because they're sure the federal government will take over part of the cost increase. and recent work by the new york fed has sort of found a confirmation on this, that when you raise pell grants by a dollar, then you end up seeing increase in tuition from a lot of colleges by about 50 cents. i was just wondering for those who are in support of funding colleges through direct student aid, if you could address how we could design student aid so as to avoid this issue? >> i actually participated -- i anticipated that because it is, bennett hypothesis, i don't know why bennett gets credit for it, it is about institutions making decisions, how they're making decisions. gao supported that too through federal loans. there are institutions, for profit institutions as well as many other institutions who have particularly used the loan programs, the more they could
get, more caps off more they can charge the there is institution in this town that used to brag about that, gw. i won't mention them. [laughter] used to brag about charging the most amount, leading country what you charge and we'll get more applications. they are one of leaders trying to blow loan caps off so they can get student more loan money. there is relationship. there is correlation. but in the public sector it's not. unless we have our own tuition and fiat ton my. we don't. most of us, it is either controlled, governor says, freeze it for two years. well, we didn't play a role in it. we have a state legislature needs 2/3 vote to raise tuition dollar or a fee dollar. so the public sector, we got these controls on us. that don't allow to us roll into that hypothesis but there are many institutions that have taken advantage of that and many that have not. so it's a mixed bag of who is abusing it. we have for president
institutions exactly how they set their tuition and fee policy. so, we need better controls. we have to have better controls. >> sir, i will jump in. it is a great question. i do think that we're seeing more evidence and more convincing evidence from rigorous work than the bennett hypothesis is actually a real thing. intuitively it makes sense. we have got studies that verify that. particularly the one you cited. my sense from the literature the effect for pell grants and need-based aid are not as conclusive and not as large as the effects for student loins. in some cases for tax credits. there is study of tax credits, find dollar for dollar substitution. so i do think it is worth asking. i have written about the need to get, to rein in and or eliminate some of the federal loan programs that are the most perverse on these grounds, namely the plus programs that allow unlimited borrowing up to
the cost of attendance. that sends one signal to colleges about what they can do, which is raise their prices. i think we need to talk about which programs are likely to have this effect on tuition, which aren't. it is not to say there isn't gamesmanship around pell. we've seen that, some papers show, turn hears a paper out of university of maryland that shows private colleges in particular, sorry, sara substitute money away from student that get pell towards other students, institutional aid they would have given. there is some gamesmanship. president alexander is right, effect on public colleges you find it much smaller in that regard. so, your question is a good one. what we need to do, i think about what parts of the federal portfolio are likely cause and effect most dramatically and reason those pieces in -- rein those pieces and commitment to student-based aid. >> this has been looked at under
the clinton administration, under the obama administration, and bush administration congressional instruction all three said they could not fine a correlation. so those advocates finally had a draft of that study, that was the somewhat flawed to use that as proof is to be problematic. we have just seen feldman look at it. the way traditional colleges set tuition, they're looking at, it is, there is whole sectors of economy, the student aid money is such a small percentage of it, the tuition revenue is, has so many factors attached to it, that it east really decoupled position. let me, beyond the studies, i know we have a lot of wonks in this room, let me look at it from a really practical point of view. i'm a college and i'm looking at somebody that walks in with a absolute poverty student, they
walk in with a $6,000 pell grant. i know we're not there yet. but we'll be there soon. that student, as far as expected family contribution, because i will have to make up the rest, looks more like a family making 60 or $70,000 as far as the money they can put on the table. i don't care if they're taking it out of checkbook, if i'm a college or taking it from uncle sam. how much do i, how do i fill in that differential between what it actually costs me to educate that student and it is going to cost me less if the feds put down the money. so i think many institutions probably got the exact opposite. it is going to vary by institution but for the publics and privates, it helps. it doesn't hurt. >> king and andrew. >> i've seep so many studies on this i think evidence institution admits under oath and under testimony seems like it's real and when they have to admit they have been doing it that way and they have, that's
pretty good evidence. i. >> i would just say that i think, we, to me it is no coincidence, i believe the studies found positive effects by the way, i read them carefully. i think they're well-designed. i think it is hard to ignore the fact that middle income student assistance act, in 1978, that is when the tuition up tick really started, right? so we have to ask the question what is going on there. and so, and it is worth asking, right? the federal rule went from saying it was focused and need-based to something now grown into this frankenstein that covers entire income distribution, from tax credits to subsidized loans, loans for parents. it is worth asking, what that has done to the incentives for institutions and for states, frankly, right? and part of the problem i see is that we don't have a whole lot of proposals that propose to rein that in so much layer more stuff on top of it which is more likely to lead us down the path
further. >> before we take our second question, quick update on our poll. so right now we have 42% of you who agree that extra federal dollars in higher education should go directly to the states but 58% said actually disagree. we'll see if that changes by end of this conversation. next question. >> hi. art hoffman. one person who dealt with these issues on tuition and aid, it is not accurate to say there is no correlation. obviously there is a correlation. there is no causal relationship proof but obviously correlation between increase in aid and increase in prices. several myths here, state disinvestment, the decrease in federal funding and attain attainment -- that are all things that really require more
discussion and they are myths to some extent. three quick questions. one is, what is the topic of this session? is it additional money or is it substituting for the vouchers that exist? because i would vote for one on additional aid, yet to provide additional student incentives. i wouldn't vote to replace vouchers with it. two, he forgot my other questions, but anyhow, so that is one. and then second is, why, states have it within their power to do these things now. why are they not doing it? what is it that is preventing them? why do we think that the feds, given all the problems with federal aid would make the state programs better? >> so it is additional aid that is the proposition but whoever would like to take that part. >> it changed. it evolved over time. >> evolved, in the prep we all disagreed with the premise.
[laughter]. >> we didn't have two sides. >> art, on the state thing, why don't they do it? because they don't have to raise taxes. they get reelected. and, that's, that is, that's been told to me by a speaker of a state senate in university of louisville parking lot. and, in addition to that, the incentives, the point that was just made is a very good one. when esea title one schools was approved in 1965, esea which was just reauthorized, let me point out is an institutional program to rewardlow income schools that have certain percentage of low-income students, which would be wonderful if we had title one at federal level. when title one was authorized first thing that happened, states pull money out of poor schools, pulled money out of
poor schools, leading to maintenance of effort provision put into law in '67, two years later. the federal government had to sue states not to up is plant their money, and not take money out, won that case in kentucky case in the supreme court, forcing the states to put money back in the poor schools. the same thing is happening here in higher ed. states have incentives to get out of funding on higher ed and force it on back of tuition policies at federal level. that is what they're doing nationwide. but we don't have the same '67 law. we only had it during the stimulus package. only three years in the last 10 years where pell grant increases have exceeded tuition increases. in our public and state universities because states were halted in order to collect federal money. >> would anyone else like to take this. >> i think it is a great, if you want to learn about this stuff, read art's work at american
innovation. it has been valuable to me. this is one of the odd dids in all these plans. they almost start greedy state legislators, they're shortsighted, don't know what they're talking about, don't know what they're doing. so we want to give them even more power in terms of the divvying up the money and in terms of having to continue to fund at a particular rate just because the feds come in and offer a carrot. that to me just seems like, it is a very strange way to think about this. and it suggests that the politics of this would changeover night based on some federal incentive which i don't think it is true. other thing to also point out, one of the things that worries me most about some of these proposals, especially free college proposals, higher ed enrollments are countercyclical, right? what happens in the next recession when the states, states say we have to balance our budget. we can't maintain commitment we pledged to you under this hypothetical free college plan, what happens then? do the feds say you're at it
program and nobody gets any aid anymore? do feds come in give influx of cash, in which case it is worth asking whether the fed has commitment problem, right, vis-a-vis its incentive, its partnership and incentive program. these are not hypotheses. this is where we'll end up at some point in the future. >> i actually don't see the general trend of higher education financing in the state level as being one of intentional disinvestment over the time. >> right. >> we're going to get out of this because we're done with it, we don't want to fund colleges anymore. they're reacting in short term. the reason higher education gets cut disproportionally in down times, the only major state category have alternative revenue source. schools, prisons all the rest don't have alternative revenue source but higher education has tuition. it is very appealing place to cut because they raise money through tuition which is exactly what they have done.
you see over time, boom and bust cycle with the general downward trend. we're back on increase, not in louisiana. but in many states we are actually, as state legislators are bense spending more on higher education than they have in years past. it is not a steady, steady downward trend. but the role of the federal government is change that particularly, that exact pro-cyclical behavior you're talking about. states have to be pro-cyclical by virtue of structures of their federal budget. the federal government can help with that. model it, but i love that if you have to make a match, make a match. hard to move it a little bit. just doesn't concern me as much. >> any questions from the audience? >> amy from new america. thank you so much from being here. this is maybe to tee off on will's point, whether or not
states would or wouldn't pony it up. you talked about two different examples, state highways, and medicaid. and saying well, you know state highways are for everybody and other program is just for a few and we have seen states opt out. i wonder if politics are different for program that affects poor people versus a program that affects everyone, middle class, upper middle class families who are very powerful constituents? i wonder if you could address that? >> it sounds like you're talking to a state that puts 95% of its money, student aid money in merit-based programs. you have to realize, we had this conversation yesterday with the presidents of the land grant. when states reduced budgets like they have, college tuition has gone up. at some point the middle class population starts screaming and can't afford it because they're left out of the student aid
equation. that led to zell miller getting elected in georgia and states adopting medal class programs. it is middle class backlash. states increasingly made institutions less affordable by reducing their role in all of this. it is such a middle class backlash, president obama and secretary clinton got in a big debate over how high they will raise the aotc they raised it from 60,000 to 180,000. of which $22 billion in federal expenditures go to. now 55% of our parents take this. i bet that is going to get increased. i bet that is going up from 2500 because the politics of hitting those, that middle class voters that i still waiting to see states tackle that issue. it is the number one issue in louisiana. we may not get funded but that merit-based scholarship program probably will. so that is a big challenge for us. because we're dealing with the
politics of a middle class that feels disenfranchised because they weren't a part of the federal aid equation and all they could turn to was loans. >> so i think amy raise as good question. there is a level at which states have, there are a lot of programs where states have sort of bought in. that has been the history. we've seen a more recent turn recently especially over health care issue. and probably at least one factor in that because it was so strongly identified with one political party. so you see a backlash in those other states. i'm not so sure that the free public college debate doesn't suffer from the same politics. but, i think that we have to to insure whatever we do we would work on something try to gauge
against those consequences as much as we do. my concern with the states is a little bit different. my concern is that the states are so committed, state legislators are so committed to, i'm never going to vote for increased taxes but i think one of the things i haven't seen us look much at, what has all the balanced budget amendments done to the states? this was a big trend 20 years ago. so what ends up is education is in countercyclical or higher ed is. when unemployment rate goes up, people go back to school. colleges are flooded with students and the states run out of money. so when the federal government, i'm sorry, when colleges need money the most the states have the least, and i don't know how you get out of that cycle because politically i don't see any movement among the states. i can't imagine that states would go back to being willing to borrow in the lean times. they won't have the money, back
to will's point. they potentially won't have money to do this. >> any? >> to be clear, my point about medicaid and highways to suggest that is instance where the federal government's goals are more directly aligned with the way the policy functions. and that is because i'm defining the federal goals in something like medicaid to provide health care to people who couldn't afford it either wise, right? and what i'm suggesting is that in the case of higher education, that states often have different goals than the feds. the state goals are exactly this, make sure middle and upper income families stay in the state, right? so they fund the flagships really well. provide a lot of merit aid. those goals to me are not actually what the federal government should be pursuing. the federal government should be pursuing the other side of the spectrum. so that's the broader point i'm trying to make. part of what i worry about is
yes, middle-class families would likely clamor in some places to become part of your plan, let's say, right? but at that point, at that point the federal government is delivering a bunch of subsidy to middle class families in order to also reduce the prices for lower income families. and to me, to me that is not as efficient as providing money to low income families. >> we'll give everyone a two minute closing remark. since we ended with sarah, we'll start with sarah. >> okay. well, i think that we should not throw out a system that has incredibly deep and broad political support and that probably is the most significant thing about what we have with current structure of student aid. it is incredible that the pell grant program has bipartisan support it has. federal investment in it, it is bigger than many cabinet agencies. that is not nothing.
and the thought that a new system that funds colleges, i wish colleges were as popular as we might think. that funds colleges or states. i think politically is going to be very, very hard to sustain. i think it is a hard time to put in new programs. i think that we need to work on incentives and not beating each other up. and, that we can work within the framework back to king alexander's point about 1972. i think there are frameworks there of a federal partnership where the feds are not alone. also working to kind of lure states and institutions into a national goal that might not be exactly 100% their own goals while recognizing that they have different, that they have to survive as institutions and that states want to keep the best and brightest at home recognizing
all those things. renewing that partnership and looking at what it should look like today is the best way to go. >> let's go down the line. >> go down the line. i was trying to think of mine as we're going. shoot from the hip. to me, this is we'll a debate about first principles of why the federal government is involved in this debate in the first place. that is where i started my comments. i think it is worth asking. i think, there's a sense in washington among advocacy groups and also at state colleges and universities that more state investment is unambiguously a good thing for low-income families in particular. and to me that is not necessarily borne out, it is different, differs by different states but it is not necessarily borne out by the funding formulas that states use and by the, and i about the distribution of who actually attends colleges in states. one of the things, i was reading
as night a piece from washington monthly about the situation in louisiana. there is sort of a throwaway line at the last minute the legislature was able to save the universities, right? >> it was the last minute. literally last three minutes. >> the throw away line by increasing the sales tax, right? the sales tax is a regressive tax. it taxes low income people the most. they spend their money on, spend far more of their money on goods and services than do rich people, right? so worthying about distributional consequences about all this, not just waving our hands, no, no. by definition more dollars, more dollars in state institutions to lower the price of tuition for everyone, regardless of their income is unambiguous good. we have to start asking whether that's true. and think about how federal role could, could help the students we want to help without necessarily spending in such
inefficient way. >> king. >> the greatest public universities on this planet were created by federal intentions to tell states they needed to do it in 1862 and 189. we need that intervention. we need intervention to have the federal government step up to the plate. states are getting out of the business. greatest example i know 2006, 48 governors against us, nga totally against us when we put maintenance in stimulus packages. said it wouldn't work. federal government has no business doing that. . .
simply putting more money, new money into their current programs we are doing, we love nothing but a federal system of higher education in 20 years. we are out of business in 2027, the current trend chose colorado 2025 before the cut i just took. arizona 2030, iowa 2029. we want of a federal system that is based on tuition and loans and grants or do we want to keep and incentivize our states ask my fight which is an everyday fight, i told him will have to got 4000 classes. they didn't budge. i told him i will take the football helmet. that got their attention.
[laughter] the state in our name is what we're fighting to keep, to be those institutions that our missions as we were founded to be. be. >> you get the last word. >> i started out talking about we will and in the 1970s. i worry we will build policies, the way they have to be. tuition has to go up a certain rate every year, that states have to spend money on a lot of high income students. that institutions will continue to shift away from funding need-based aid towards funding highly academically capable students. none of those have to be the way. if the federal government can use its leverage to change the way states and institutions behave. that's what i think the federal government must change the way it is investing in higher education. thank you. >> thank you, guys. we will open up the polling again one last time for a few
>> and our first conversation from the trouble with assaulting it's not an either or. we've got to do both, and that states need help in making the right decisions tuesday players in this vital enterprise for our country. >> and also within -- [inaudible] >> well-planned. >> you guys made my job very easy. >> and all of you who are working in these areas, just raised awareness of the trends and don't be afraid of new ide ideas. >> all right. thank you, guys so much for joining us today. [applause]
>> yesterday, ohio governor john kasich gave a campaign speech at the women's national republican club in new york city. new york holds its presidential primary tuesday with 91 republican delegates at stake. this is half an hour. ♪ [applause] >> well, thank you, and thank you to the women's national republican club. it's great to be your this morning. you know, this is really a wonderful and historic clubhouse. the organization is so steeped in history of its own as well as in the history of the city, our
party, and the country. women's national republican club was founded by leaders of the suffrage movement, with new voting rights in mind, the clubhouse was the intended to be a place where women could meet and share knowledge about political issues. so to be better informed participants, of course come in the electoral process. as new voters, women participate in the choice between candidates and their ideas. it is in that spirit that i speak to all of you today. i'm going to talk about the choice america faces in this election. and it is, frankly, a choice between two paths, two very different paths. and as we make this choice, don't kid yourself, the entire world is watching. the world is watching because
america is civilization's brightest beacon. freedom loving people depend on our leadership for peace and for stability. civilizations enemies only seek, only seek for us to fail. you know, presidents can, presidents go, and while a president does really matter, it's the democratic principles that have made us that leader for more than two centuries. that have been sturdy enough to transcend political and ideological differences, a civil war, two world wars, and a century of technological and societal upheaval here through it all we have remained history's greatest force for good, because we stay true to who we are. one nation, under god, liberty and justice for all.
this election may well be one of the most consequential of many generations because of the next president will face so many complex pressures, both from within and from without. they will force tough decisions are not only our leaders, but from every one of us. that we will not always like our options. the issues we confront from fighting isis, handling russia, china, north korea, in the middle east, to addressing displaced workers, civil rights, the new plague of drug addiction at home as well as slow economic growth and rising debt. think about it. they are all critical. the importance of making the right choices certainly cannot be understated. it can overload us if we let it, but even in the face of this
multitude of complex, thorny problems, clarity can emerge. from the fog of anxiety to the seemingly endless choices can be reduced and then reduced again, and then reduced again. and they eventually are whittled down to just too. and here they are. will we turn our backs on the ideals of america that it seemed as through more than two centuries? or are we going to reaffirm that america is come in ronald reagan's words, it's last best hope for man on earth. ladies and gentlemen, this is our choice. for some the challenges we face, the new choices, the potential changes at each decision presents, it could and maybe in some sense has given rise to fear or anger, and, of course, that can be polarizing. the response for some is to retreat into the past two years
for the way things used to be. to these people, today's america's only seen as a broken place, and the people who did the breaking are the other people with more money, or less money. people would different sounding last names, or different religious beliefs, or different colored skin or lifestyles, or whatever. you get the idea. we have been told that because of all this change, america has become dark, that we have succumbed at the we are no longer strong. we are told that we are no longer respected in the world. in fact, we are even told a foreign governments are actually controlling our destiny because they have become smarter than us, and tougher than us. this picture of america in economic and moral decline is of course always followed up with
warnings of our impending destruction. for many americans of these fears of this outlook are as real as the building we are in today. and the anger they cause is we'll. it is true -- israel. industry we are fighters for america but we fight for what is good. we fight for what is right. and when we do that, we win, don't we? we win. and don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise. when we come together, when we unite as a country, america always wins. for those who are angry or afraid, i want to be sure there is another, better way to deal with this. some who feed off of the fears and a good that is dispelled by some of us and exploited, either own insatiable desires for fame or attention. that could drive america down
into a ditch and not make us great again. just as disturbing are the solutions they offer. we have are proposals to create a religious test for immigration, to target neighborhoods for surveillance, to deport 11.5 million people, to impose draconian tariffs which would crush trade and destroy american jobs. we have heard proposals to drop out of the nato, banned in europe to russia, possible use of nuclear weapons in europe and in our defense partnerships in asia and to our middle east allies that they have to go it alone. we have been offered hollow promises to impose a value-added tax, balance budgets through simple and whimsical cuts and waste, fraud, and abuse. there is no office that has the
title of waste, fraud, and abuse. we have been promised an unpopular laws should be repealed simply through the will of a strongman in the white house, and that the supreme court justices will be empowered with some new, extraconstitutional ability to investigate former public officials. i stood on a stage and watched with amazement as candidates wallowed in the mud, viciously attacked one another, called each other liars, and disparaged each other's character. those who continuously push that type of behavior are not worthy of the office they are seeking. [applause] >> as for me, as i've said
repeatedly, i will not take the low road to the highest office in the land. i will simply not do it. [applause] just as an all consuming fear of america in decline in seeing visions of america's destruction, a political strategy based on exploiting americans, instead of lifting them up, inevitably leads to divisions, paranoia, isolation and promises that can never ever be fulfilled. i say to you that this path to darkness is the antithesis of all that america has meant for 240 years. some have a different response to the pressures ac bearing down on america in themselves. it would never occur to me that america would break, or could
break, from challenges to our economy or to our security. we hardened with resolve to ingenuity and coming together. we can't sit by idly unexpected fate or destiny within and rescue us. you see, we always roll up our sleeves and get to work when the going gets tough. and we have never, never ever seen the american spirit fail. america's strength is if we were bound by shared ideas come by communities and families and people who were free, creative, and giving. this is what makes america great, not some politician or some law. the spirit of our country rests in us, you, and you, and you, all of us. cannot withstand all of our challenges, america is still
great. take any measure, whether its life expectancy, madison, nutrition, technology, innovation, transportation or even economic power. america's economy is still the largest and most productive in the world. we are bigger than the next two economies, china and japan, combined. america still leads the world in making things. america is among the largest exporter of goods and services in the entire world. america is home to six of the top 10 universities in the world. america is the worlds innovator, the world's inventor, and believe in intellectual property. don't let anybody, particularly a politician, tell you that america is not great. that doesn't mean we are not capable of drifting. we can draft, and we have been,
and too many americans are still being left behind or are making it but feel betrayed by a system that's become too big to fail. too many feel that the government and politicians have betrayed them. there are a lot of americans who ask, why is there no one speaking for me? why is it no one is working for us? why is it, you all these promises from prop -- politicians, and nothing ever comes from it. and, of course, those who are concerned about this our right. for too long politicians have been making promises based upon polling, focus groups, what is older particularly expedient. this is not leadership, ladies and gentlemen. leadership is the willingness to walk a lonely road with a team of people with her eyes fixed on the horizon focus on solving problems and healing our
country. leading -- [applause] leading is serving. you know, there is a better, higher path. true leadership means pursuing it. even if it's hard. the sacrifice is part of the job because leaders can't lead unless they are servants first. to run for president yet respect the dignity of a job where close to 320 million people depend on you here our campaign -- [applause] -- should be full of ideas that provide energy and solutions, innovations and excitement for whatever office we are running for. because we all have to look our family in the eyes, know that we raised the bar. i want to be able to look at my wife and my daughter's in the eyes and know that they are proud of me, and the type of campaign that we are running. american leadership is at its
finest when it buckles on the irreplaceable can-do spirit that says anything is possible and that everyone can participate in america's blessings. you see, i have no doubt that we can restore our economy, we can rebuild our military. we can make america safe from terrorism, and reengage as the leader in the world again. we can do this with a reasonable and proven solutions rooted in the american ideals that have seen us through tough days before. the proven solution, ladies and gentlemen, are right in front of us, and we know what needs to be done. there's no better and quicker cure to america's challenges and to grow the economy and stimulate private-sector job creation. to have the resources to solve problems, we need economic
strength. in the 1990s when we balanced the federal budget, pay down the federal debt, or a large portion of the, cut taxes and created surpluses, the result was a sustained period of economic growth, lower interest rates, job creation and national prosperity. we were not talking about income inequality or the lack of wage increases because it was happening. businesses were growing, unemployment was at historic lows, and you are going to want the job could find one. in fact, the labor market became a buyer's market for the job seeker. but this was no small feat. think for a moment about what we did. for the first time since americans walked on the moon, the federal government had a balanced budget. for the first time since may and had walked the moon, we finally got it done. and we didn't only balanced the budget, we were also able to
reform welfare which ended generational dependency. we reform the pentagon to strengthen our defenses. we cut the capital gains tax, and we did much more. you know, i tell younger audiences about this, if you look at me like i'm crazy. they don't believe it ever happened. but we know that it did, and it can happen again. it just takes leadership. the will to challenge the status quo and a willingness to work across the aisle. [applause] yes, we have to be willing to work, also with the other party. i think americans are not only fed up with what washington is not doing, but i think they are also tired of the partisan bickering. and that doesn't mean you compromise your principles. ronald reagan worked with tip o'neill. no one ever accused the gipper of giving up his principles come
even though he accomplished things. but that's because ronald reagan was a leader. and folks, i want to remind you of that period of time. in 1994 the republicans captured the house and the senate, and had a majority for the first time in 40 years. the people who showed up in that congress during that period could care less about polling, focus groups, we the election or anything else. they came committed to building a stronger america. and when you think about it, balancing a budget, cutting taxes, paying down debt, reforming welfare, reforming the pentagon a building the military strength, all that god accomplished in a short period of time because we through politics out the window and we were focused on helping the american people. that's what leaders need to deal. [applause] -- need to do. one of the things i have learned
through this campaign is it's the job of a leader to first slow down. we all need to slow down. and listen to others who sometimes are never listened to. and we need to listen carefully. then you set an agenda that meets america's needs, and to bring everybody together to make it a reality. there is no place for dividing, polarizing, pointing fingers or trading on short-term political gain. i hold to this lawsuit leadership because i've watched great leaders practice it. they have been successful. and, frankly, i have seen it work in my own experience. i worked for 10 years to pass a balanced budget. it was hard work. and when i became chairman of the budget committee, our team was able to get it done even with the democrats in the white house. we were proud when we reformed welfare and dozen of other armed
services committee we all came together to reform the pentagon and realign our military services that resulted in a central command structure that allowed the services to work together. and, frankly, it's the same formula that we've used in ohio. we were facing an $8 billion deficit, and we lost 350,000 jobs. in a few short years we turned a deficit into a surplus of 2 billion, and gave ohioans the largest tax cut of any state in the country. [applause] >> we even repealed the death tax. ohio has now created 417,000 private sector jobs, up from the loss of 350,000, and its working, and we continue to work -- [applause] -- to make sure no one is left behind. this can work for america again as well.
and ladies and gentlemen, to date across our country when a politician's lips are moving, people think that they are being lied to. you see, a lot of people have wondered, why does he keep talking about what he has done? why? you see, folks, i'm a citizen, to come and when somebody comes to my door and they want to know if i will vote for them and they tell me what their promises are, i looked him in the eye and i say, you know, i know what you said which are going to do but i would like to know what you've done. i think enough people tell me what they're going to do who never got it done. so what have you done in your lifetime? we don't have time for on the job training. we don't have time for empty promises. we can't have somebody with the experience, the knowledge, the know-how and the record of success to deal with our
problems in a turbulent time. now, based on the fact that my experience in washington and ohio have been successful, using a formula to get everybody to work together to rise and provide opportunity for everybody, i proposed a 100 day agenda for when i am president, and i can tell you, be rest assured, we will and act this. we will restore our economy with the fiscal plan that will balance the budget. we will freeze all federal regulations for one year except health and safety, rebuild our will making system to stop crushing small businesses, which kills of jobs in our country. [applause] we will simplify and we will reduce taxes on individuals for all americans can keep more of what they earn, and will help our small businesses. we will reduce taxes on businesses and end double taxation so these businesses will invest in america and not
have their money trapped and invested in your. we will send welfare, education, medicaid, infrastructure and job training act to where we live in the states so th that states cae the laboratories of innovation, and laboratories of modeling what works. we will protect the border and use common sense on immigration reform. that will include a guest worker program, and we'll fix social security so that we can keep the promises to our seniors and future generations. we and we do these things, we will unleash economic growth. which means more jobs, higher wages, and the restoration of the american dream that our children will inherit a better america than what we received from our parents. with increased stability and strength, america can rebuild its military while at the same time reforming the pentagon to
operate like a 21st century enterprise. we have no room for waste in that building, because it takes money from the front line to our men and women who protect us every day. we will clean it up. [applause] we will resume leadership of the world, and as we do that we will treat our veterans with respect, and lifted them to make sure thathey have what they need, whether it's health care, jobs, or housing. [applause] with america is strong, less dependent on debt, and growing economically, we can, we must reclaim our place as the leader in the world. and, finally, with america is strong and actively engaged in the world, the world is a safer place. america than is a safer place. >> just a few moments left in his remarks with governor
kasich. we will leave to go live now to the senate on this wednesday morning. lawmakers continued today to work on legislation setting federal aviation administration programs and policies. a vote on final passage could come this week. the bill authorizing $33 billion in faa funding over the next year and includes new consumer protections for airline passengers and it sets new rules for drone users. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate it on c-span2. the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, the refuge of the distressed, thank you that in our troubles you sustain us with your loving kindness and tender
mercy. forgive us when we neglect to find in you a shelter from life's storms. today, fill our senators with a vibrant faith. give them complete confidence in your providential leading. may the fire of your love consume all things in their lives that displease you. as they are led by your spirit, give them your peace. we pray in your sacred name. amen.
the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: with the traveling -- whether traveling for business or leisure, american travelers want to feel safe and informed when flying. they also want to feel assured that in light of recent terror attacks more is being done to protect them in our airports and in our skies.
chairman thune knows this, and that's why he's worked attentively with members from both sides to put forth this bipartisan f.a.a. reauthorization and security bill. i appreciate his work with the aviation subcommittee chair, senator ayotte, and their counterparts, senator nelson and senator cantwell, to move this important bill forward. there are several good security measures included in the bill, like increased efforts to prevent cybersecurity risks and efforts to help better prepare us whep it comes to communicable diseases. but these senators didn't stop there. they worked to include additional safety measures in an amendment that passed by a bipartisan majority. here's what we know the amendment will do. it will help prevent the inside threat of terrorism by enhancing inspections and vetting of airport employees. it will require review of perimeter security. it will improve various efforts
to secure international flights coming into our airports. in addition to these steps designed to ramp up security, we also adopted an amendment from senator heinrich that would increase security in prescreening areas which could be vulnerable to terror attacks. senator toomey and casey worked hard to get the senator to address the security of cockpit doors. these amendments put forth by republicans and democrats emphasize the bipartisan nature of this issue and this bipartisan f.a.a. reauthorization and security bill. nearly 60 amendments from both sides were accepted in committee, and more than a dozen from both sides were accepted here on the floor. i encourage members to continue working across the aisle to move this bill forward as the chairman reminded us yesterday, this bill contains the most comprehensive set of aviation security reforms in years. so let's take the next step in passing this legislation and getting it one step closer to
becoming law. now one other matter, 40 years ago this week christine katuchi set out to spend her summer as a tour guide at the capitol. she still remembers her first day in the summer of 1976. it was a much different time back then, without the screening protocols and limitations on where visitors could go like we have today. christine parked her car and walked straight up the main rotunda steps ready to work. she didn't have intentions of staying past the summer, much less for four decades. but today some 16 sergeant at arms and seven presidential administrations later, christine is still a smiling, friendly face to those who enter, which is important because as director of the senate appointments desk, she's often the first person a
visitor sees when visiting the capitol. as the years have gone by, christine's responsibilities and admiration for the senate have grown. she still considers it an honor and a privilege to help those visiting the capitol. and that's true, she says, whether it is an official business visitor or a starry eyed tourist. she says she loves seeing the awe people have when they visit the capitol, and she's proud to be a part of that experience. the joy that this institution and this career have brought to christine obviously made a pretty big impact on the love of her life, her daughter nicole. nicole works just one floor up from her mom. and in christine's words, she is a constant reminder that family comes first. today christine's senate family would like to congratulate her on this notable milestone. we thank her for her four decades of steadfast service and look forward to seeing the
impact she'll continue to make here in the capitol. the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. reid: no matter what work or occupation one has, it's always good to have a diversion away from your duties of the day. now i am very careful in never speaking for the republican leader, but i will do an exception today in talking a little bit about my friend, the republican leader. we both found a diversion during baseball season. we can leave here, it really doesn't matter what time -- usually the games are at night -- and we can watch the nationals play baseball. now prior -- so i know that the republican leader and i have talked about this often, how much we enjoy the games.
we have enjoyed the games much more since this las vegas young man is on the baseball team, the washington nationals, bryce harper. he is, he comes from a great family, a working family. his father was an iron worker. just a close family. but i also, prior to the nationals even having a team here -- i've been here a long time, so i followed the more hills. i should as a side note mention how i am for the owner, that fine man, his team is doing so well this year. they're seven and 0. senator mcconnell and i enjoy baseball season. it gives us an opportunity to focus on things other than what's going on here in the senate. mr. president, i join with the
republican leader today in honoring christine catuccu on the occasion of her 40th anniversary working for the united states senate. in any given year, two and a half million people visit this beautiful building. bill dowster who is here with me virtually all day anywhere i go, was commenting with me before the prayer was given, how fortunate we are to work in this magnificent building. as the republican leader mentioned in his comments about ms. catuccu, we're here in this building all the time and may not appreciate as much as we should every day, but it is a beautiful, beautiful building. for those of us who are fortunate enough to venture over
to the place where she works, you will see a great smile. down on the first floor, she spends most of her day. that's where most of the people come in, on that floor. that smile belongs to her. when i first saw that smile many years ago, we had a senate retreat, and she was there helping staff us. and she played a vital role in making sure the retreat worked well. i've always remembered her from that one experience. she does have a disarming smile for which we should all be grateful. i know that i am. she's been here for 40 years. 40 years. the only person that's been here that's a senator longer than christine is pat leahy from vermont. she has seniority over everybody except senator leahy.
her career began in the last year of gerald ford's presidency. she worked as a tour guide, chaperoning people through the capitol and giving explanations for what they were looking at at the time. in 1980, she moved to the office of the doorkeeper of the senate and moved through a number of positions there for 11 years. in 1991, she arrived in the senate appointments desk where she's worked for the last 25 years. she's the director overseeing a staff of nine. over the years she's developed a close relationship with senators and staff, and she can recount with pleasure the times that senator byrd, robert byrd, the legendary robert byrd of west virginia would invite her and some of her coworkers to have lunch with him in the capitol, his capitol office. he didn't eat much, if anything, but he talked all the time,
telling stories. she was the recipient of a number of those stories of the late, great senator byrd. the senate is our family literally. her father was a senate doorkeeper from 1967 to 1977. her daughter nicole works in the cloakroom right behind us. that's three generations of senate staffers. as nicole summed up everything great about her mother when she said -- quote -- "my mom raised me all by herself. did an amazing job as a single mom while working full time." so this is christine catuccu, the work ethic and dedication she brought to the senate every day for the last 40 years, four decades. thank you very much for being part of our senate family. mr. president, i'd like this to appear separately in the record, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: throughout his career in the senate, the senior senator from iowa has styled
himself inadequate for transparency, transparency in government. a number of years ago he said -- quote -- "i believe in the principle of open government. lack of transparency in the public policy process leads to cynicism and distrust of public officials. as a matter of principle, the american people need to be made aware of any action that prevent a matter from being considered by their elected senators." close quote. he reiterated his beliefs just a few days ago here in this chamber, and here's what he said last week -- quote -- "the principle of government transparency is one that does not expire. open government is good government, and americans have a right to a government that is accountable to its people." close quote. so senator grassley's commitment to transparency is as shallow as
the shallowest puddle you can find. all it took was one phone call obviously from the republican leader for sator grassley to abandon any pretense of transparency that shut the american people out of the supreme court process. shut them out. this is the same senator who once said -- i quote again -- "as a matter of principle the american people need to be made aware of any action being considered by their elected senators." nothing that senator grassley has done with respect to the supreme court vacancy meets his own standard for transparency. there was no transparency when the judiciary committee chairman and republican members shut democrats out and met with the republican leader behind closed doors. there was no transparency when he twisted the arms of his own committee members to send a bill. there was no transparency when he sought to move a public committee meeting behind closed
doors just to avoid talking about the supreme court nomination. and there was certainly no transparency on tuesday, yesterday, when at 8:00 in the morning he met downstairs with judge merrick garland in a private senate dining room moments before slipping out the back door to avoid reporters. this is how cnn reported the story. quote -- "the iowa senator left the high-profile but out of sight meeting through a back door that leads to his private hideaway." close quote. one television station in iowa put it this way -- "grassley evaded reporters." close quote. this is the same senator who once wanted cameras in federal courtrooms, including the supreme court. why? to increase transparency, he said. senator grassley only wants transparency to apply to others, i guess not to himself. when it comes to transparency, his attitude is strictly do as i
say, not as i do. now, he won't even apply a degree of the same openness as he blocks a nominee to the highest court in the land. there will be no transparency if senator grassley fails to call an open hearing, a hearing so chief justice garland can present himself to the american people. i have had people ask me why, why would there be a hearing? it's obvious. they are all afraid. the chairman of the judiciary committee is afraid that this good man, if the american people sees him, will understand why he is a pick that couldn't be better, a nomination that couldn't be better. they are afraid to allow this man to be seen by the american public. now, talking about transparency, there wasn't any if the republican senators aren't going to be able to have a vote on the nomination. now, i would say all this has
been going on is not like the grassley that i have served with for more than three decades. carrying out the republican leader's failed strategy undermines the court. the senator from iowa is undermining years of his own work in pushing for more open government. all that he has done talking about transparency is gone. senator grassley should take his own medicine and stop retreating behind the closed doors for private conversations that should the american people out of the important confirmation process. if the senior senator from iowa truly believes in transparency, he should simply do his job and give merrick garland a hearing and a vote. mr. president, there appears to be no one seeking the floor. would you tell us what we're doing for the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak