Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  June 10, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT

9:00 pm
pidly. my faculty member walked up and said mr. alexander he said, welcome to the campus. said, you seem so excited. you remind me of mark kerr. i said that's a very nice compliment. clark kerr was the distinguished president of the university of california. i said how is that. she said he arrived and left the same way. fired with enthusiasm. we'll be about 5 million jobs short by 2020 of people who have the proper post-secondary skills. so what do we do about that is the question. and i think the answer is we've done quite a bit. at the end of world war ii 5%
9:01 pm
of americans had a college degree. in 1965 when the higher education act passed for the first time about 10% had a college degree. and today it's 35%. so we've made some progress and many would argue we have the best in the world. at least we have people lined up to go to them from other countries. and i believe that's become because quite by accident mainly the g.i. bill for veterans in 1944 that began to give money to students and allow them to choose any institution of their choice, we've got lots of choice, lots of competition. 6,000 institutions. and that has created the best system of college and universities. think how different that is from the kind of marketplace we have in k through 12. i'd like to mention quickly three things today i think we could do to improve things. then we'll talk about them. one, clear out the jungle of red
9:02 pm
tape that is regulating higher education. two is stop telling students that they can't afford college because most of them can. and three four more steps to make students less likely to borrow more than they should. on the first point, red tape. two years ago, four of us asked a distinguished group of academics to give us specific recommendations about how to reduce the regulatory overburden of colleges. they gave us 59 recommendations. and among the things they told us was that vanderbilt university hired the boston consulting group to tell vanderbilt how much it cost the university to comply with federal rules and regulation. and the answer was $150 million. that's $11,000 per student.
9:03 pm
some of you know about this. this is called the fafsa. 20 million americans fill this out every year online. it's 108 questions. testimony before our committee says that two questions would do. the president can think of 30 questions that we don't need. so if we can get it closer to two, we could release an army of people who are helping students fill out forms to help them choose among colleges. and the president of a community college in memphis told me he thinks he loses 1500 stuntzdents a semester because of the complexity of the forms. so we have something we called the fast act that would make that simpler. cut it down to two questions. is what we'd like to do. i'll ask students to take it in their junior year not their senior year. fill it out in their junior year. we would also simplify the student loan repayment form and
9:04 pm
do some other things. this report that i mentioned of the university people said that every workday, every one of our 6,000 higher education institutions gets a letter or a guidance or a new rule or something from the u.s. department of education. every day. every work day. the national academy of sciences has a group that's reported twice that 42% of investigators time with research is spent on administrative tasks. every governor knows one reason tuition is up is that federal medicaid mandates soak up state dollars that would otherwise go to higher education. so getting rid of red tape is one thing we're going to try to do when we reauthorize the higher education act. second thing i've said i said the other day in chattanooga and they said you never hear that. which is politicians should stop telling students they can't afford college, because most of students can afford college.
9:05 pm
you never hear that. and if you don't believe it i'd like to suggest that you think of 40% in three different ways. nearly 40% of undergraduates attend public two-year colleges. another nearly 40% attend public four-year colleges. 40% of all those students that i just mentioned are eligible for a federal pell grant that they don't have to pay back of up to $5,700. so as a result two years of college in the united states is free or nearly free for every low-income student in the country. nationally community college tuition and fees average $3,300 a year. the average pell grant averages $3,260 a year. in tennessee, community college is now free for every student. what about public four-year universities where another 40% go? the average tuition is $9,000. remember about 40% have a pell
9:06 pm
grant. at the university of tennessee almost all have an in-state state grant called the hope scholarship. $3,500 annually for sophomores, up to $4500 for juniors and seniors. so a degree is available for most students. what about really expensive colleges? the elite so-called schools. tuition is about $31,000. i saw the georgetown university president the other day. he said this is what they do. they figure out how much a family or student can afford. they ask the student to borrow up to $4,500 a year. they ask the student to work 10 or 15 hours a week in a work study program and the university pays the rest. they help students pay $60,000 a year at georgetown. and many other private universities do the same. so for many so-called elite universities, they are available. in spite of all this some
9:07 pm
people still need money. so you can borrow money. we hear a lot about student loans. our taxpayers generous enough, is borrowing for college a good investment. are students borrowing too much? one way to answer this question is to compare student loans to automobile loans. when i was 25 years old, i bought my first car. and i had to get an auto loan. i was outraged that the bank made my father cosign the loan because i had no assets and no credit rating. they took my car as collateral and said i had to pay it back in three years. compare that to your student loan today. taxpayers will loan you up to $6,000 a year. that's in addition to the pell grant you don't have to pay back. your credit rating doesn't matter. your interest rate is 4.25% for this year. at a fixed rate. you may pay the loan back using no more than 10% of your
9:08 pm
disposal income. if it's not paid back after 20 years, it's forgiven. is your student loan a better investment than your auto loan? cars depreciate. student loans appreciate. college board estimates that during your lifetime you'll earn a million more dollars if you have a four-year degree. is there too much student loan borrowing? according to the federal reserve, the average debt for a student who graduates with a four-year degree is $27,000. that's about exactly the average debt for a car loan in the united states. the total amount of outstanding student loans is $1.2 trillion. that's a lot of money. but the total amount of car loans is $950 billion and i don't hear anybody suggesting that that's too many auto loans. what about the $100,000 loans? that's only 4% of all the loans and 90% of those are graduate loans. lawyers, business people, others who have elected to do that. but still costs are up 9% of
9:09 pm
students are in default on their loans. what can we do to reduce the cost of college and to make it easier for students not to borrow too much? one, we can change the federal laws that discourage colleges from counseling students about borrowing too much. we make it hard for colleges to do that. number two allow students to use the pell grant year round so they can get through faster. that saves money. number three simplify the student aid application forms and loan repayment. i described a very generous loan repayment program but most students find it too complicated to do. i ran into a university president the other day that said he took nine months trying to pay off his daughter's student loan and he had the help of his financial aid officer. and then clear out the jungle of red tape. so these five steps would help reduce the cost of college.
9:10 pm
it would help discourage students from borrowing more than they could pay back. we should get rid of the red tape as much as we can. and i believe politicians ought to stop telling students they can't afford to go to college because most students can. if you look at the amount of student loans and the amount of federal aid that is available. even if you borrow $27,000 to help you get a four-year degree, which is the average amount your student loan is going to be roughly equal to your auto loan. and your degree is a far better investment for you and for our country. thank you. [ applause ] >> senator. >> right here? >> thanks for joining us. i covered you long enough i think the biggest issue will be remembering to call you senator, not governor. >> i've been called much worse.
9:11 pm
>> let's talk a little bit about how the ideas and the priorities that you just laid out figure into the reauthorization of the hea. you laid out cutting regulation cutting red tape rethinking the whole affordability question skinning in the game for colleges and universities. how do these rank among your priorities for the reauthorization? what are you looking to achieve primarily in the reauthorization? >> first of all, let me say i'll be working for close with patti murray. we were able to produce a bill to fix no child left behind after two congresses couldn't do it. so it won't just be my priority. it'll be hers as well. and we'll try by september to produce for the committee to consider a draft bill. now, the priorities that i'd like to see included are the jungle of red tape. we've done a lot of work on this. this is mccullski and bennett
9:12 pm
and burr and me. we'll be introducing legislation that could be part of it. the simplifies of the student aid is six of us senators. we call it the fast act. that's a good candidate to be included. there is a lot of interest in dealing with the issue of sexual assault on campus. i met with a group of senators the other day. they will be having a hearing on that. we've got to deal with accreditation. i didn't mention that. but that's a difficult one to figure out. and the challenge is really with all this incredible new stuff heading our way, technology. how do you allow for that to make its way into the higher education system? so those are some of the priorities. >> if you -- just to be clear, as you pointed out, somewhat distinctive in the current political climate, you and senator murray produced a draft that the committee i believe on the k to 12 issue --
9:13 pm
>> rand paul and elizabeth warren both voted for it. >> listed issues on a small venn diagram. your goal is to draft again with senator murray. >> she suggested that to me at the begin oging of the year. i found it helpful to listen and took her advice. it was good advice. if it worked once, we're going to try it again. >> you also -- you mentioned you have the simplification legislation that is a good candidate to be in the overall bill. you've already had legislation -- you also have legislation on simplifying the student aid repayment plans, one fixed ten-year plan. do you expect that to be part of it as well? and what is the goal in that streamlining? >> well, the goal is -- that's called the fast act and it has six parts. which are to simplify the form i laid out. you know, the easiest thing to do is to allow students to fill
9:14 pm
that out in their junior year in high school. it's just absurd that right now you have to fill it out and report what your tax information is before you file your tax return. and you could do it a year earlier which would give you more time to shop around and do things. we want fewer loans and fewer grants. we're exploringeing colleges having some sharing in the risk having some skin in the game when they participate in the student loan program. and there are nine different ways to pay your loan back. we're going to say let's go to two. i mean basically you'll have -- you can pay it back over ten years like a mortgage if you get one now. 4.29%, pay it back over ten years. or you can pay it back with no more than 10% of your disposal income and it's forgiven after 20 years if you don't pay it back. >> you talked again now about the idea and as you just
9:15 pm
repeated colleges having skin in the game and universities. what are some of the ways that could actually be implemented? >> well, we haven't figured that out yet. senator jack reid, and senator durbin have a bill. our staff is exploring it. we mentioned it in a paper we put out. we're looking for ideas. but basically it would be a broad incentive for colleges to counsel students carefully about how much they borrow. right now the federal law makes it hard for them to do that. actually makes it hard for colleges to do that. so we have to be careful with it because the federal government loans more than a hundred billion a year. we don't want a perverse sentiment in it that would limit access. wouldn't want to do that. we have to be careful. but there probably is some way and what appeals to me about it is unlike the gainful employment rule which is just an impossible
9:16 pm
maze of rules hundreds of pages of rules this would just be a broad mandate with an incentive that would apply to all colleges and universities. and then they could figure out their own way to deal with it or they don't have to participate in the federal student loan program. for example, tennessee has 13 community colleges. four do not participate in the federal student loan program. and two are dropping out. and you'd say why would they do that? well, because community college is free. so why do you want to loan a student more money to pay back when they might not be able to pay it back? and then run the risk of default that might affect your ability to get pell grants. >> well you mentioned the committee put out a white paper on the skin in the game idea. you also put out two other white papers and asked for responses and comment. one having to do with these accreditation issues and the deregulating accreditation or finding new mechanisms for
9:17 pm
accreditation. what kind of response did you get on that and where is your thinking heading in that front? >> my own thinking is less developed on accreditation than anything else because it's complex. the creditors argue if we give them flexibility, they could do what needs to be done. maybe that's true. but i don't have a direct -- i can tell you what we want to do about student aid. i can tell you 59 things about deregulation. >> the other white paper you put out was on data transparency. to provide students with more to guide their decisions. what kind of reaction did you get to that? >> well, good reaction. i mean, the problem -- you all know this. i mean the higher education act has been reauthorized eight times since 1965. which means a new group of well-meaning senators, congressmen, bureaucrats come
9:18 pm
in. i voted against the last reauthorization because the stack was already as tall as i was and the new law would double the stack. what we really need is just a good writer. someone to take a bunch of stuff and compress it into language students can understand. the federal government doesn't do that very well. lots of institutions do it well. university of texas has a terrific website where you can go on and find out all sorts of things about what college costs are, what job placement is likely to be what you can make if you do this, if you borrow this much how you do that. they're likely to do it better than we will. but the goal is simplify, make it clear so that students and parents can actually understand what they're getting into. for example, senator franken has mentioned that colleges use the word award to mean grant or loan. and that many people are
9:19 pm
confused by that. they don't know they have to pay one of them back. so he's got a point there. and so it ought to be clear that your pell grant you can keep. your loan you've got to pay back and making that clear. i've talked to elizabeth warren about this a few times when she was at the consumer bureau. she said her goal was a one-page mortgage application. because a 22-page mortgage application doesn't do anything for the consumer because you just go through and sign the bottom of every page without knowing what it is. and a good clear one pager would help. so a lot of good, clear one pagers is what i'm looking for. >> ted mitchell who was sitting in the chair a few minutes ago says the administration is on track with its own data effort to put out its college rating system to be available later this year. you have said i believe the department's attempt will fall on its face. why do you think that and why do you think they shouldn't be doing this? >> well, i don't think they have the capacity to do it. i mean, we -- i used to work
9:20 pm
there. we have 6,000 colleges and universities. how are you going to rate and why do we need -- why do we care what they think about that? i mean, there are facts and figures that consumers can find out about all those institutions and make their own judgment about it. so i think they're likely to be misleading and difficult to do. i'd rather they go to work on something i asked them to do seven years ago. i put in the appropriations bill the department needed to do a calendar, a very simple calendar, of every rule that a college or university was expected to follow from the department. so that you could sit down there at the catholic college in minneapolis and say, okay, january the 4th i've got to do this. january the 5th i've got to do this. they've been working seven years and haven't been able to produce such a calendar.
9:21 pm
>> if they do go ahead with the rating system will you try to do something to stop them? >> sure. but i don't think they'll be able to do it. i think there will be an outcry when they propose it it will fall on its face. >> what are the opportunities available you'd try to stop? the appropriations the authorization itself? >> the senate is now meeting and working and taking amendments which it hadn't been doing for three or four years. >> so many opportunities. >> the higher education act is a good place to do it. >> you have also been critical of the gainful employment regulations which they recently won one of their court challenges. i know they still have another. they say they're on track to go into effect this summer. would you do anything to block those and why do you object to those? >> the reason i object to it is because it's horrendously complicated. it's 600 or 800 pages. it only applies to one sector. with the risk-sharing idea, take a broad incentive that would encourage institutions to keep
9:22 pm
costs down and discourage students from borrowing more than they should. and so risk sharing is a much better tool for that, i think. and allows institutions to adapt their own methods to it. and it applies to everybody. 9% of students go to for-profit institutions. you've got at least 91% at other institution. >> if they go ahead, will you also try to block those? >> if i can, yeah. >> yesterday they announced debt forgiveness for students at the bankrupt colleges. what was your feeling about that announcement? >> well, i felt for the students. these are mostly low-income people who have been hurt. and so i feel for them. that was my first feeling. my second feeling is that there's one more reason why it was a bad idea to make the u.s.
9:23 pm
department of education a bank for students and a regulator for their colleges. because you hear the department in both roles of what they've done is set a new precedent that says a student may under some circumstances claim that they were misled and not have to pay their loan back. that's not good news for taxpayers. usually if you buy -- if your car is a lemon, you sue the car company, not the bank. and that's what's odd about this. here you're suing the taxpayers who loaned you the money. if you don't pay your loan back, that's who's hurt. and so i'm concerned about that part of it. >> you mentioned -- we've mentioned elizabeth warren more than i expected from this stage today. and she is one of a group of democratic legislators who are talking increasingly about the idea of debt-free public higher education. that students should be able to attend a public institution and emerge debt free.
9:24 pm
no specifics yet, but a lot of broad discussion. what do you think about that goal? is it a feasible goal? is it an appropriate goal? >> does that mean harvard and georgetown too? >> they're saying public universities. >> oh, public. that's what i was talking about a minute ago. it's that kind of talk that makes students think they can't afford college. two years of college for a low-income student is already free or nearly free. i mean the average pell grant is $3,260 and the average tuition at a community college is $3,300. in california and texas the pell grant is more than the average tuition of a community college. so it's already free. i'd like to see the politicians -- our problem is we've got 5 million more students with post-secondary distills. why don't we attract them rather than try to scare them off. the governor haslam in tennessee
9:25 pm
knows the community college was already essentially free for the 40% of students that are low income. so he found a way to say the community college is free for every high school graduate. that's -- that was such a surprise to students to learn that it was free that many more decided to go. so when we have all this talk about you can't go to college because you can't afford it, a lot of people stay home. if we go out and say did you know that two years is essentially free if you're one of the 40% of students that's low income? and did you know if you want to go to georgetown, they'll first find out what your family can pay and if you work 10 hours a week and if you borrow $4,500 that you could go to georgetown? we don't say that to people. i think it's a -- you know, every political season politicians run around saying we're going to solve your student loan problem hoping they'll get votes. i'd like to see them run around
9:26 pm
saying we made it easy for you -- easier. it's never easy to pay for college, but it's easier than most people think. and we have politicians who are making it harder for them. you don't hear many people saying what i'm saying right now. more should. >> you have a hard deadline. we have time for one question if we have anybody at either microphone or i will ask you a final question. yes? but move yourself to the microphone quickly please. because the chairman has to go wield the gavel. >> hello. my name is martha sanchez. i'm a student at america university. this is actually a question for both you and the undersecretary who was here earlier. you know, you mentioned how the department of education is both the person that most students rely on for information. at the same time they're also the people who are giving us and
9:27 pm
selling us loans. the u.s. -- according to the cbo, the u.s. will earn about $137 billion from financing student loans. is there any effort to make sure that this money goes back into investing into our education and our future? or is this too soon to know? >> well, that's an interesting -- there's a difference of opinion about that. and i can mention elisabeth warren again. because she has one view and i have another. there are two ways that the congressional budget office decides what student loans cost. and the proper way to do it, they've said is fair market value accounting. in other words, it takes into account the risk you might not pay back your loan. 9% are in default. that would sound like a logical thing to do. if you look at it the way i just described, then the taxpayers subsidizing the students with the student loan reform we did
9:28 pm
in 2013. if you look at it with the way the law says it goes the way elizabeth says. so the right way to do it is i think, the way i described. it would be revenue neutral. that students -- that the money that students borrow from the taxpayers be as roughly rather neutral as we can get it based on a fair market value accounting system. sometimes you hear senators say well, they loan money to banks at 1%. why don't they do that for students? well, the reason is they loan money to banks overnight. you probably want your student loan for more than one day. so typically it's ten years. and what we try to do when we work on the student loans and we did this in 2013, the president was very effective in pointing this out. we asked the congressional
9:29 pm
budget office please tell us what our language would do in terms of making it revenue neutral so the taxpayers aren't subsidizing the students and the students aren't subsidizing the taxpayers. we've tried to come as close to that as we could. >> i know you've got to go. can i ask you real quick also on your plate the src reauthorization. when do you expect that to be on the senate floor? >> i hope it's there before the end of the month or early next month. that's up to senator mcconnell. let me kind of end where i started and give credit to patti murray. being able to work with her on elementary and secondary education act has been good. congress has failed for seven years to re-enact it. we had partisan bills and suggested we do a bipartisan bill and we did that. i think we'll be successful. so the short answer is by the end of the month or some time in july. and maybe if we're able to pass it with a big vote, the house
9:30 pm
will be able to pass one too. we're working with the president. he knows what we're doing. he doesn't agree with everything we're doing, but he's been very constructive. and we try to accommodate suggestions he's made as well. >> chairman alexander, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. [ applause ] ♪ >> please welcome sarita brown, dr. muriel howard cheryl hyman, andrew kelly, aaron smith and
9:31 pm
moderator sophie quinton. >> hi everyone. can you hear me okay? great. it's great to be here today. thank you so much for coming. we've had a great conversation so far and i now have a million questions to ask our great panel. the last one we're meeting with here today. we don't have a lot of time and have a ton to talk about so i thought we could dive right in. cheryl i wanted to start with you. i hope that's okay. >> that's fine. >> because i think you know, we've been talking a lot about, you know the things that federal legislation and government can do to enable innovation at the college level. and i know at the city colleges
9:32 pm
of chicago you've been looking over a whole lot of innovation over the past few years. i think that -- so from what i've gathered, basically in about three years you've been able to double the graduation rate. is it about 14%, 15% now? >> yes. >> which is high for a community college. they've managed to do that by doing things that seem like common sense. making it easier to select courses, to transfer to four-year schools et cetera. cheryl, do you think there's anything that the federal government could do to really encourage that kind of innovation at the college level? >> yes. but i'll translate that a different way. i think there's a lot that the federal government can and should do to hold institutions accountable for those types of outcomes. and what do i mean by that? i think there should be more performance-based outcomes tied to funding. i think community colleges and
9:33 pm
higher educational institutions and the federal government should look at how they measure success. and it should not be measured by enrollment which has been the traditional way that higher educational institutions particularly community colleges have measured themselves. i think the starting point should be how many students are completing and employed in their area of study. which is very much different than many institutions say, well 90% of our students are employed. we're 80% employed before they came to you. is it employed in their area of study. i think i heard the senator talk about the accrediting bodies. i think we the federal government should look at how institutions are accrediting differently. and i think employers should be part of the accrediting process. and then lastly i think higher educational institutions have been divorced from their real world for too long. and that they need to be
9:34 pm
relevant. their programs need to be relevant and the department of education can support and empower them to become more dynamic institutions that respond to the marketplace. and at city colleges, we're very data driven. we have a five-year plan with measurable outcomes that we hold everybody accountable to. and we did all that i've just mentioned. and i think that should be become the focus now. accountability. there needs to be a huge cultural shift in higher education. >> yeah. i'm going to skip down to muir muriel. you work with state college presidents all the time. do you agree with cheryl that there needs to be more accountability, more of a connection with employers and the labor market? or is that something more unique to community colleges and the role they play? >> oh no. because as a state institution we're a public college and university. and we've actually been engaged
9:35 pm
in accountability in a number of different ways. certainly at the state level. more and more states are engaged in performance funding where they're requiring colleges and universities to report outcomes. and at the american association of state colleges and universities, we have now over a decade of data because we have over 200 of our campuses that actually voluntarily participate in something called the voluntary system of accountability. where not only do they report out specific demographic data that will help inform students help inform political leaders, community leaders, business leaders about the institution but also we also look at some of our learning outcomes. and we have enough data now that we're even beginning to not just look at a one size fits all way to answer that question but colleges and universities are in the process who participate in
9:36 pm
the system of defining their outcomes that look more&rí closely. that's sbiintegrated to the curriculum. that's something we very much support, have been quite engaged in. i would say, though when you're trying to match student educational degree experiences at the four-year level it does get a little bit different in a sense that you know, you're a liberal arts major, perhaps, you may major in english which could take you into a number of profession weather it's teaching or journalism or working for a corporate company. i think some of our four-year degrees that are focused around the liberal arts or are focused around some of the sciences there may not be a quick track. for example, as an undergraduate i was a sociology major. you know, i clearly understood
9:37 pm
that i needed to go on to graduate school as a sociology major if i really wanted to hone in on a specific professional degree area. we do offer a lot of professional degrees, of course. whereas cheryl's analogy lines right up. nursing profession, for example. some of our stem degree professions whether it's engineering or whatever. i think we have to be a little bit open because at the four-year level you're moving into a lot of breadth and depth. you have to allow for the important majors and the arts and the sciences. my college was huge in the arts and those students do everything from designing your wedding ring to fixing your picasso. >> yeah. i want to move forward because we don't have a ton of time and i have a lot of questions, but i think you touched on two points that i want to circle back to later in the conversation. one, the value of you know collecting data on outcomes and
9:38 pm
publicizing it. and two the fact that there is incredible diverseity in the college system in the u.s. i do have a couple of sort of wonky questions about some of the strategies for using federal aid or sort of federal investment in higher education as we discussed earlier today. one of them we talked about on the phone the other day this idea of risk sharing. and i think, you know when i first hear that, that sounds vague to me. but there are some very concrete strategies that the federal government could use toñh+ push institutions to really take on some of the risk of student loans. could you walk us through a couple of the ways that the federal government could structure some kind of risk sharing program? >> sure. so i think it's important to start by acknowledging the status quo and the incentives that sets up. i think cheryl's discussion with what's going on in her campus is inspiring. it's wonderful.
9:39 pm
we hear this from around the country. there tend to be islands of excellence and innovation. part of the reason that's the case is the incentives are not there for the average typical college necessarily to focus on student success. the current way we hold colleges accountable at the federal level is the cohort default rate. what percentage of your students default in a three-year window after their finish school or leave school. easily gained as long as you push people over the three-year window, you're harmless for that. and, you know it's also an increasingly less meaningful measure because students are able to sign up for payments and other protections. one of the ideas that i've been writing about, other people have been discussing including chairman alexander is the notion you would put colleges on the hook financially for some amount of that the risk of default or lack of loan repayment. for lack of a better term. and the beauty of this is it
9:40 pm
sets an outcomes based sort of framework and says to colleges, you get there however you'd like to. it's not sort of a top-down here are the innovations you have to implement via federal directive. but it says here's what we're going to hold you accountable for. you do your best to meet those. and it presents two oernt opportunities. the other is to learn a lot more from successful colleges about how to organize for student success. on the most basic level, it is literally holding colleges financially responsible for a percentage of the loans that go unpaid by their graduates. >> yeah. >> and dropouts. >> and do you have any thoughts on that? i know young invincibles have been involved because it's a major issue to face. are there any that seem promising to you or does it seem to not be the way we should be going? >> i think we should start by
9:41 pm
acknowledging some of the big news in the last couple days around corinthians. when we talk about risk sharing or accountability more broadly, i think here is an interesting example where students really led the charge for accountability here. and, you know, we were very happy to see the department of education step in and provide some relief. obviously, you know, we should preserve those protections around gainful employment. but as we think more broadly around risk sharing i think we very much agree that that's an important part of the -- any kind of higher education reform is thinking about how schools sort of have some skin in the game. and so one of the things we've looked at is not just basing on cohort default rates but also repayment rates. because sometimes default rates can be gained we think, you know, students should be able to repay their loans at least if not better than if they had just graduated from high school. we should be able to show some
9:42 pm
advantage from that. and keep in mind the, you know, the risk is already been born by taxpayers and by our country when we have schools that fail to do their job as far as giveing kids a decent education. we're interested in looking broadly at repayment. "b," we think any risk sharing should take into account not just tuition but the broader costs of going to school. which we know are very dramatic. and finally, you know, any proposal to do risk sharing which would in part depend on data being able to better understand sort of what -- and we'll talk more about it -- but eliminating the student record is important. but also we shouldn't undermine the protections we already have. things like gainful employment the 90/10 rule are important protections that are already -- we can see they're already starting to work.
9:43 pm
>> but we need something that sort of goes beyond that, yeah. >> exactly. but we need something that will apply to all schools. >> yeah. i want to get back to that thought, but first i have a question for you sarita. i know that we -- in the conversations i've had it's been very clear that your organization has been very interested in making sure that students have good information. the sort of information in general but in terms of what institutions are doing well to serve the new more diverse student body that's heading to higher ed. i mean, when we're talking about these questions of accountability students making -- you know, colleges making sure that students are getting a degree that's going to help them in the workforce. what kind of information do students really need to make smart decisions about where they're going to go to college, how much money they're going to be taking out? what kind of information do they need and what aren't they currently getting by all the different both private and, you know federal vehicles for
9:44 pm
rating colleges and getting students information on that? >> it needs to be very practical. it needs to be very real. not to come out swinging with senator -- the senator's comments, but i think that a student regardless of where they live should have the means to not only believe but act on that college is affordable. and unfortunately too many students and the term we like to use a post-traditional students are still left navigating a catalog or materials from an institution where loans and grants and scholarships -- so i think the kind of information that needs to be available universally is something that is very plain spoken about the difference between a loan and grant aid. >> right. it's not just an award. >> that is quite different. and i've been doing this long enough that i do remember when we used to talk about financial aid and it was aid. and for the population that we
9:45 pm
focus on latinos are in the loans. over the course of the years we've been setting it, it looks like good reason. when you graduate from college with that kind of loan debt life is very challenging. and we're now talking about it universally. i think at the very least the information that the federal government and any large entity provides needs to look at what does this mean when the student graduates? and one of the practical ways i used to do when i was a recruiter at ut austin for graduate education, i used to look at the entry salary of an assistant professor. because i was looking at doctoral education. i used to say, okay what is the potential first-year salary as an assistant professor? that's the most that your loan debt should be when you graduate. because if it's anything greater than that, you're talking about buying a car, having a mortgage having a family, and all of those things become difficult.
9:46 pm
i'm not clairvoyant, but 20 years later as a country, that's what we're talking about. >> yeah. that's an interesting point. i mean, one of the things that i found very interesting about senator alexander's remarks is he's passionate about the idea that college is actually affordable and we're sort of misleading students on that. but on the other hand i think that the burden of student debt is very real. this is sort of a question for the whole panel but do you think that -- i mean do you think college is affordable? do you think student debt is a bigger deal than car loan debt or is this out of proportion? you're nodding a lot. >> i do think college is very affordable. i think it's very affordable. i think community college is in particular are extremely affordable. that's where i got my start. i actually graduated from one of the community colleges of which i am now responsible for. however, i think any investment in time and money, students
9:47 pm
should know what their return on that investment will be. so i have a degree from the community college, but i have two advanced degrees from two very expensive -- where the tuition was very expensive. but i do believe that it paid off. so i think transparency and to keep an education affordable but also having transparency so students can understand exactly the investment that they're making. will that degree from that institution pay off for me? >> and are you able to figure that out with the information currently available to you? or do we need something like a student record system where the federal government is tracking students over time? >> exactly. i think that will help. however, i don't let city colleges, my institution, off the hook because that doesn't exist. i did an 18-month -- i have a team of researchers who do
9:48 pm
nothing but study data. there's enough data in the world. the problem is it's so spread out that it's so confusing for students to put it all together. so institutions have to take the responsibility to put that information together, show exactly -- if you go on city college's website, you can see the seven industries that will dominate our region over the next decade. the credentials that's needed, the places that are hiring your starting salaries and how our classes and credentials align with that. and we created structure by structure pathways to make that easy. so they need to understand what their opportunities are and have institutions like ours to act on them. so that they can understand where they should make that investment. and how that investment will pay off. >> yeah. i mean, this is sort of gets at a big picture question we were touching on back in the greenroom earlier. in the higher education act, it's an important piece of legislation. but there is so much that can be done at the local level state
9:49 pm
level, particularly the state level to make sure that colleges are serving this population that we're concerned about well. do you have a thought on that? >> i just want to add that, you know, this isn't an academic debate. you can just go talk to american people, go talk to students, go talk to borrowers. i think there's a recent gallup poll that showed the cost of college was the number one worry for parents. so no, obviously college is not affordable. and you can look at the ways in which debt has spiraled. there's a reason why nearly 15% of graduates are defaulting on their student loans. because they're not able to come out with a degree that can, you know, help them succeed in this economy. >> i get that's a two-sided issue. college is expensive and also the folks going to college are less well off than they were. >> i think data will be helpful in that. to consistently cut funding and since the recession about 40%
9:50 pm
have not returned to their pre-recession levels. basically states are privatizing our system of higher education. and i think this idea of a federal state partnership could do a lot to help to system. and they can do a lot. >> we need to go to questions, but i think the site funding is sort of being the elephant in the room. so if anybody else wants to comment on that -- >> what he said and also the secretary, that we really do need to get the states back to the table to support higher education. and an incentive program, we've proposed a matching incentive program to help address that. states do need help. staints states aren't just being mean and saying we don't want to help in higher education and support. they really do need help. so i think the feds do need to help us out here. quickly on the student loans repayment issues and whatnot, i also think as we think about the rules, we have to make sure that everything is included.
9:51 pm
for example, we don't know about private loans that students take. we don't have access to that information. students can go out and take a private loan, a family can. we don't have that information in our databases so we don't know if they've done that. and that does happen quite a bit. so i do think we need to take into account the rules. also keeping in touch with students when they sign up for their loans. we don't have any way to hold that student. they may or may not give us their forwarding address and we're chasing them around and our default rates are going up, we're not able to inform them. because when students get into a challenge, often the best thing or the only thing they know how to do is just walk away. and so they respond with their feet. and so when we think about
9:52 pm
putting these guidelines into place, we need to look at it from everybody's perspective. >> did you want to ask something? >> just i think the question is college affordable for you? we're having this conversation, who is making that determination? and i think the students are the ones who ultimately -- their families are the ones who are going to make the decision if it's affordable for them. and in this conversation about both the federal role and the societal influences, i definitely think that as we are moving towards a more vocational way of framing the impact of higher education, the business sector has to weigh in. because they're the beneficiaries. and i think as that becomes aspirational, but really the paradigm that we use, i think the business sector has to take up its leadership role their investment, because they are not only acceptable of the
9:53 pm
graduates, their process expectses, their work is determined by the quality of our graduates. the business sector has been critical and invefrting in isolated institutions, which is a good thing. but in terms of a leadership role, we need to all in higher education be talking about the business roles involvement in terms of investors. >> >>. >> right, right. i think there are some folks lining up but if anyone has some questions they would like to ask, if not, we can keep talking about this pretty much all day. what were you going to say? >> what matters is whether the thing you're paying for actually pays off.
9:54 pm
and so even if tuition is zero, what you're studying for is not worth anything then you've lost the opportunity. i think the emphasis on free in my opinion, is a mistake. i think we need to be on -- we need to be looking at value. and this is partly a data question, but partly just changing people's mind-set right? there's this odd conversation we're having, right where we're talking about how great higher ed is for the economy right? more people should go more people should go. and at the same time, we're having a conversation about how bad student debt is for the economy, right? and the two seems to be very much intention for me. the fact that we have a lot more student debt means a lot more people have gone to college, right? so the notion that that is somehow bad for the economy, it just strikes me as being intention. >> i don't think there's more student debt so more people are
9:55 pm
going to college. but what you said is what i tried to emphasize. if more people go to college and the credentials are relevant, we have more employers at the table, then i'm not sure student debt should be going up as much as it is. i question whether we have more people going to college and graduating with credentials that are not relevant, meaning are they finding jobs, are they transferring to four-year institutions where they're continuing on to that advanced degree that they need? how well is that college paying off for them? that is my ben big concern and that's what i push at city colleges and that's what i think we should be holding institutions accountable to. how do you guarantee that for a student? so i get a little concern that we have a lot more people going to college. but the projection of the skills gap is continuing to rise and
9:56 pm
that concerns me. >> because people are not studying the things that would close the fiscal gap. >> they can't study what we don't offer. is it being offered in a way that is structured enough so that they can go on and get that education and still juggle family work and everything else. the structure of the institution matters as well. all of that matters. sfwh yeah. that's sort of a perennial pension that was touched on in the earlier panels about making sure there's access to college and making sure colleges are serving students well. and that shows up when we're talking about performance-based funding at the state level. basically if you were saying two coaches you need to reach they would say we are going to become more selective in our admission in order to meet that. do you see that as a big concern?
9:57 pm
do you think there is any way that federal dollars can be used as a lever to make sure that access is maintained even as we go forward in the states go forward thinking more about the accountability? >> well, i think pell has to stay and play to continue to make sure that's still there as an important tool. i'd love to see year-round pell come back because that was so important. we only had one year with that and we saw a great return from that one year. so that would be wonderful if we could get that wrap around back. so i think other than that, a lot of the responsibility to release that part of the tension lies with the institutions but i think the federal government could help us be consistent, stay with it don't be afraid to raise it and make it available year-round. >> it's certainly intentioned.
9:58 pm
and i think part of the issue here is that we've provided a lot of college access in name only for a lot of people. we provided access to a few credits and some debt and inability to pay it back. and i think we need to ask questions of whether that's what we meant by access when we first passed the higher ed act. we've spent a couple of years now bemoaning the fact that for-profit colleges were enroll enrolling people that were unlikely to be successful. that to me strikes me as a problem across the board. if we are knowingly leading people into debt that are unlikely to be successful that is a problem. if the system is hurting a non-trifleal proportion of people then we should rethink the way we do it. >> we have a question from the audience. >> my question i thought it was interesting earlier how linden b. johnson signed the act on the
9:59 pm
desk that he worked at po put himself through school. since then we know that the tuition costs have been rising and we know that college is more expensive for students. my question is -- i mean luckily, i go to a private university with an organization that sponsors it. my question is are we going to be be able to put ourselves through college by working, is that over or is that a possibility in the future? there seems to be an implicit assumption that loans are necessary. >> sometimes there's a disconnect with elected officials who believe you can just work a summer and not pay for your college tuition. i don't think that the days of working while in college are over. we have a program that we've proposed expanding it dramatically and improving how it's targeted to switch targeting the right students. we've supported expanding sort of career pathways to connect
10:00 pm
the students between colleges and education afterwards. i think work plays a huge role because it's one of the things that's going to help you have a successful career after, after you leave. but i think that the way the costs are going, it's increasingly becoming unrealistic to think that you could just pay for it over the summer like maybe my dad did. >> i think some people might say we have an opposite problem where students are only attending part-time because they have to work to pay for that tuition. >> that would be my population. the days of working and going to school are very much here, but i don't think that many of my students are working to pay for school. they are working to feed their families. and many of them, because of that, have to go to school part time which takes them way too long to complete a two-year
10:01 pm
degree. so that is another reason why we've taken a very structured approach at city colleges. with our structured pathways predict enrollment and scheduling so that now students can know exactly what time they're going, their classes are picked for them and they can work now and go to school. but i think you touched on a very important point. is providing financial aid year-round making it more simpler and will help pay for some of this? but also there's a lot more skin in the game institutions can have. i'm always putting accountability on the institution to help students. we've paid for three summer classes if students enroll in 15 credit hours because that helps them get to a to-year degree quicker. we pay for dual credit dual enrollment and we have over 3,000 students doing that right
10:02 pm
now. and we are one of the states that do offer the free two years, which we'll be starting in june. so programs like that, to me, pay for themselves. and i think there's just more skin we can have in the game as institutions. i think students are working. i just don't think they can afford to work and take their check and feed their family and pay for college. >> the majority of students in america work while going to school. that's a fact. so to ask the question if it's possible, students are doing it every day. you're talking about the tension. the tension i find in these discussions as we are talking about the anomaly. that is what is happening. and the question with any leadership moment is how are we going to recognize that reality i'm not the data person on this panel, but i know that's part of this data. how we respond to that
10:03 pm
opportunity, they're pursuing their lives. how are we enabling that? that is the opportunity in a discussion like this and in the stnts discussions we have before us. and in that respect, i mean, i find that students are navigating very -- in a very entrepreneurial way. oftentimes we talk about them not doing it right. i mean if i have a bone to pick with the obama administration, it's this discussion about undermatching. i think, yes it's very important that students go to the best institution they can be admitted to. but honestly students are pursuing higher education in every way that's presented to them. >> quickly the root of your question i think was are loans now necessary? just an assumption. and that's a really good question. and i think part of what we've -- we've limited ourselves in thinking about how would we get to a place where loans are no longer necessary, right? there is lots of different ways to think about bringing the cost of college down and they are not
10:04 pm
just sort of declaring it free and moving on. there is what we would ideally have is a system where colleges would compete with one another on what really matters which is the value of the credentials that they're producing. so you would have places that are inexpensive where you can work your way through that deliver a huge return. those would be popular for that right, right? they wouldn't be this place of last resort like they so often are now. >> i think we are operating on a deficit model when we think about this experience in the colleges or universities and i think that we've got to take all of these issues and try to figure out what it's going to be in a model of prosperity. how do we take all the short cop comings how do we
10:05 pm
take off the attributes, how do we bring innovation to the table so that we can begin to say the americans to go to college it is possible and here are the ways that it can happen to you. i'm saying this from a public institution point of view. i think we still have to work our way through that and figure out and bring the foundations to the table like everyone said we have to bring all of those and bring in the right policies to help us think about the prosperity mark. this country needs people to get a college education and we've got to figure out how do we help them move to that model and understand that it is possible and it is doable? >> we are running out of time, but i wanted to ask one last question. sort of get to what the root of what's next america is all about, we hear a lot about the nontraditional students post
10:06 pm
traditional students, and more diverse student body are heading to college more than ever before. i was wondering particular the folks that work at colleges or work closely with students today, what are some of the things about the students are going to college now and the struggles they face the people in washington just don't get? because i think the conversations operate on a level of assumption about what college should be, which is based often on, you know, four years at prestigious school and then you go on. but that's not the reality for most students. >> just going back to the issue of cost, they think it's tuition you pay to participate in that collegiate experience. and it's not. you've got transportation, you've got to be able to purchase your books and supplies that support the experience depending on what the profession requires, whether you have to be out in the field for internships or externships. you have to have a way to get there and to get back.
10:07 pm
you do have to be able to in many cases support your family. so it's not this narrow focus that it's just the cost of tuition and everything is all set is a myth. students know that and that's what they run into. we also have to understand when students say they don't have $200 and that's the one thing that's keeping them out, it's really real to them. and if you don't have that $200, you're not going. so i think trying to understand the reality that students are certainly facing. so this whole idea of going to college is hard work. i mean it's a job and it's not just something you go in and, you know we pour the information in your head and you walk out. we are not doing brain surgery yet. i still think when we think about innovation, we need to make sure that we are designing experiences that lead students along a clear pathway. and i'm really happy to see colleges and universities coming
10:08 pm
back and laying out clear pathway is to the degree. i think that is going to make a huge difference whether you are an adult learner or a 17 or 18-year-old. knowing where you are going and how to get there and how long it's going to take you and what it's going to cost. >> anything else? >> i would totally agree with certainly the point about it's hard for policymakers to understand the range of economic challenges facing students in part because they don't understand how diverse the student body population is. we just did some research on the number of young parents. about 25% of students are actually parents. so thinking about things like child care becomes a huge concern. we have a proposal to expand child care and schools which could alleviate some of the challenges. and finally, students are going to college for complicated
10:09 pm
reasons. partially it's to get a job and to get ahead, but it's also to become more knowledgeable and become a responsible citizen. so i think sort of how we balance those two concerns is something students are going to focus on a lot as we think about higher education. >> well, thank you so much. i think we are out of time. we went a little bit over but that is because we had such a great panel and a lot of folks and not a lot of time to talk about everything we wanted to talk about. so thank you all so much for coming. >> thank you so much to sophie and to our panelists. a very special thank you to the bill and melinda gates foundation. and lumina foundation and to all of you. we will be sending a survey in the next couple of days and we would love your feedback as we continuously like to improve national journal events. thanks so much and have a great rest of your day.
10:10 pm
on the next washington journal, we'll talk to luke messer and then congressman david price on transportation and hud spending. he's the top democrat on the house appropriations subcommittee on transportation and housing and urban development. and a preview of this year's congressional baseball game, our guests are joe barton, the republican team manager, and mike doyle, manager for the democrats. washington journal live with your phone calls at a 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.
10:11 pm
on book tv on c-span2 saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, fox news contributor kirsten powers says although they were once its champions liberal res now against free speech and tolerance. sunday night at 11:00, michael morrell on the successes and failures of the agency's war on terror and its current fight against al qaeda and terrorists. saturday night at 9:15, author kevin mcmahon on the strategy behind president nixon's supreme court appointment and the impact he had on the court and american politics. and sunday night at 6:00 on american artifact we visit the national museum of american history to view the newly restored murals from alabama's talladega college. and the founding of talladega
10:12 pm
college. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. british prime minister david cameron spoke to parliament about the recent g-7 summit in germany. following his remarks, the prime minister took questions on the militant group isis climate change and trade with the united states. from the british house of commons, this is just over an hour. >> statement the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with permission, i'd like to make statement on the g-7 in germany earlier this week. i went to the summit with two clear aims to advance our economic security and to protect our national security. the two, of course are interlinked because you cannot have one without the other. and at the summit i believe we made some progress on both. first on economic security, we reached important agreement on trade, global poverty, green growth and corruption. on trade, i was determined to
10:13 pm
progress the eu's trade deal with other g-7 countries which together could be worth around 20 billion pounds to our economy every year. to g-7 agreed to step up efforts on the eu japan deal and to accelerate immediately all work on the eu-u.s. trade deal. it's over 700 days since we launched negotiations at the g8 and every day without a deal is costing the global economy 630 million pound. so the agreement talks about finalizing the outline of an agreement by the end of this year. mr. speaker, we want all countries to grow, including the poorest. not just for their benefit but also because we all benefit from the increase in global growth. we should never forget what has been called the bottom billion. we agreed the importance of setting ambitious goals at the u.n. that can eradicate extreme poverty in our world by 2030 and we also reaffirmed our previous commitments on paid. britain is keeping its promises
10:14 pm
to the force in the world and i encourage directly others to do the same. turning to green growth, there were important agreements about the global deal we hope to reach in paris at the end of the year. it needs targets to keep the goal of limiting growth, lifting global warming to two degrees within reach. it needs binding rules with real transparency and accountability so countries have to follow through on their commitments. and it needs a long-term goal for emissions cuts at the upper end of the ipcc recommendations so that businesses have the confidence to invest in low carbon technology. we also reaffirm our strong commitment to mobilize the climate finance to make available to developing nations and making sure they signed up to an agreement. track to do is a new element i added to this g7 and it was fighting corruption. we met just after the feast of scandal but the point i made was the corruption is not just writing institution that is final for football, but also
10:15 pm
sitting at the heart of so many problems we face around the world candidate. cutting corruption by just 10% to benefit the global economy by $380 billion every year and corruption doesn't just threaten our prosperity, it undermines our security, too. so at this summit, i was determined we should do more to confront this issue. in britain, we passed the bribery act with a 40-strong team of criminal investigators to enforce it. we ensured that all our 28 country aid programs include anti-corruption measures. but we need the full support of our international partners. we may progress from reaffirmed our commitment to the issues of attacks and transparency that i first put on the table two years ago. we will work with the oecd and the g-20 to finalize an international plan to stop companies from artificially shifting their profits across borders to avoid taxes. and the g-7 will push for targeting monitoring processes to ensure its implementation. over 90 countries have agreed to share their tax information automatically by the end of 2018
10:16 pm
and the g7 urged others to follow suit so more people pay the tax that is due. britain has become the first major country in the world to establish a public central registry of who really owns companies. now our country ves to follow with the implementation of their own national action plan, a key step in countering money laundering and corruption. we agreed leaders would give special focus in corruption to the run up to the u.n., culminating with an anti-corruption summit next year. mr. speaker to international security for our number of issues discussed beginning with isil in syria. with a three-pronged strategy. inand iraq first were helping to train iraqi security forces so they can defeat isil on the ground. we train over 1200 kurdish troops and at the summit, i announced we will now deploy an additional 125 military personnel to expand this training effort right across iraq. second i met prime minister abadi and reiterate our support
10:17 pm
for his efforts to build an inclusive government to bring the country together against the common enemy that is isil. third, we need to do more to tackle the causes not just the consequences of this terrorist threat. that means defeating the poisonous why will ideology of extremism at home and abroad. mr. speaker, in syria there is no greater recruiting sergeant for isil than president assad war against his own people. so the g-7 call for begin yun u.s.-led political transition as the only way to bring peace and defeat terrorism in syria. in libya there's a danger of isil terrorist exploiting uncovered spaces to establish a new base from which to plot attacks against european countries. while criminal gangs are exploiting an open corridor ultimately be the new gateway to europe, or people smuggling so we agreed to give our full backing to the u.n. led effort you put in place a nation unity government in libya and we agreed a conference approach going after the games that are trafficking people go stabilizing the countries from which these people are coming and continued to play our full part in humanitarian whiskey mission.
10:18 pm
britain is playing its part in all of these things, picking up another 2,500 people at the weekend. mr. speaker, we're also stepping up our efforts to support nigeria. i mt. and discussed with president obama to discuss how we help nigh gather ya and tackle corruption and to win the fight against boko haram. we will be offered significant help, including training the nigerian army to help in its defeat of boko haram. mr. speaker, turning to global health playing our part in fighting disease overseas is not just a moral obligation, it's the single most effective way of preventing diseases affecting people here in the uk. following the ebola outbreak it was right that the g7 devoted significant time to the best to try to prevent a future global pandemic. after the summit i announced we
10:19 pm
would create a new 20 million pounds develop and fund focused on breakthrough medicines. we are leading by example in promoting greater transparency over clinical trials and forming our own crack team of medics that can deploy rapidly to tackle infection outbreaks anywhere in the world, learning the lesson of the slow response to ebola chiefly by the w.h.o. finally, mr. speaker, this was of course the second year running that we met as a g-7 rather than a g-8. president obama summed up the issue. he can continue to wreck his country's economy and continue russia's isolation or he can recognize that russia's greatness does not depend on violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our countries. the g-7 was clear about its position. diplomatic efforts will succeed in restoring territorial integrity.
10:20 pm
we expect russia to stop the transport of support and use its influence on them to bring violence to an end. we were clear that we -- and i are quote -- stand ready to take further restrictive measures in order to increase costs on russia should its actions are required. fully implementing minsk also means action from ukraine so it's vital president poroshenko's government has the support necessary to support medical and economic reforms. the uk is helping with these funds and we are looking to see what we can continue to do. we should never forget that ukrainians are the victims and not the aggressors. follow the general election with our economy grow, deficit on and tumbling people can see that britain is back. we're working for trade deals them fighting corruption completing the battle against poverty, disease and climate change, fighting isil, saving lives in the mediterranean and we're standing firm with sanctions against russia's actions in ukraine. on every front, we're playing a leading role in advancing prosperity and security around the world. and in doing so, delivering both
10:21 pm
the economic security and the national security on which our own future depends. and i commend this statement to the house. >> harriet harman. >> i think the prime minister for his statement. i welcome the conclusions of the summit, including the reaffirmation of the g-7's commitment the commitment to fighting corruption and to fighting disease overseas and i particularly welcome the support for nigeria. mr. speaker, as he says, this is the second g-7 summit where russia has been excluded. it's right that there should be consequences for what they're doing in the ukraine and russia should continue to be excluded until president putin changes course. and sanctions against russia should remain until the minsk agreements are fully implemented. eu sanctions will expire at the end of july and he said they should be rolled over. he said in his statement that the g-7 stands ready to take further restrictive measures. so as to the level of sanctions, will he be arguing at the next
10:22 pm
eu council for them to be strengthened? at the summit the prime minister anled that sanctions are having an impact on those who are imposing them. so it's right the g-7 agreed more must be done to support those eu-member states who are being particularly affected. could you tell the house what this could mean in practice? he referred in a statement to the fight against isil and we have seen the horrors of what they're doing in mosul. it's extremely worrying to see their advances in recent weeks, particularly into ramadi. a strong and united approach of tackling isil continues to be vital. we back the uk contribution towards that effort and welcome the extra 125 military trainers being sent to iraq at the request of the iraqi prime minister. as he said in his statement, the iraqi government must be supported in their efforts to push back isil's advance and restore stability and security across the country. so is there a need for further accelerating the recruitment,
10:23 pm
training and equipping of iraqi forces? an inclusive and enduring political settlement is vital. so can ask the prime minister if this is continue to press the iraqi government to do more to reach out to sunni tribes who are key to there? the summit reached important conclusions on the global economy and climate change. in discussion on ttip, can the prime minister confirm whether he sought specific assurances from president obama that our nhs will be protected? on climate change, can the prime minister clarify whether the g. 7's complicate to a global goal of greenhouse gas emissions reductions will, like our climate change act, be legally binding? but, mr. speaker, most of the press coverage around the g-7 summit was not about the global
10:24 pm
economy, climate change, isil, but it was once again about the torries rally in europe. and this was coming this is entirely of the prime minister's own doing. on sunday he spent the flight to germany boasting to journalists that he would sack in a cabinet minister who didn't toe the line on the referendum. on monday a loyal minister was dispatched to the today program to drive home the prime minister's top line. but later that very day the prime minister sounded the retreat. the traveling press has apparently misheard. not so much collective responsibility for the cabinet, but collective mishearing by the traveling press pack. sometimes happens on a flight, your ears get blocked. but the prime minister graciously and kindly said to them if you are not certain about something i said, then ask. can i say how grateful i am for that new approach. there are things that people are still uncertain about, so can
10:25 pm
i ask him, what are his reform proposals and his red line? and can he say clearly now whether, when we finish negotiating and he comes back arguing for a yes vote will he sack ministers would don't agree with him? or does he agree with the mayor of london who says ministers can vote how they want? what about the work and pension secretary? will the quiet man be here to stay or will he be allowed to turn up the volume? mr. speaker yet again another international summit vital to our national interests have ended in the usual way. a tori prime minister fighting with his own party on europe. >> can i thank the honorable lady. i enjoyed the last bit. that was back to the old punching judy. there's only one problem which is the premise that all this happened with journalists on the plane and not being able to
10:26 pm
hear. there were no journalists on the plane. so next time she might want to get the details straight. but let me go back to the beginning of her statement. on russia, i'm very grateful for her backing of the sanctions. she asked about the eu in june. there will be a full rollover of the sanctions. more sanctions would be produced, i believe, if russia took further aggressive action. we hope that doesn't happen but russia needs to know there were would be costs were that to happen. in terms of helping other eu states, i think we need to be cautious here. the fact is, putting in place sanctions damages all european countries in different ways. britain itself faces some damage from that. but our argument should be not that we can individually compensate individual eu states but more that it is in all our collective and individual interests that the rules-based system of our world continues to work and that russia doesn't violate that. so i think we should make that argument first before looking at
10:27 pm
whether there are separate measures we can take. and i thank her for her support of campaign against isil in iraq. she's absolutely right. this is being driven by the iraqi government and the long-term answer to the problems in iraq and syria are by inclusive government that can represent all of their people. i'm grateful for support for the extra 125 personnel that we sent. she asked whether iraq needs to do more to reach out to the sunni tribes and indeed to train more of the security forces. she's right on both of those grounds. that needs to happen. on the issue of ttip, the argument i would make is that the nhs is protected. there is no way that a tti p agreement can lead to changes in our nhs. i would make this suggestion to the labour party. instead of raising the profile of a threat that doesn't exist, it would be better if the whole of the uk political system could come together and push the americans instead of trying to
10:28 pm
seek false reassurances push the americans to go further on putting more on the table so this trade deal really benefits working people here in britain. that, i think, is the argument that we need to make. she asked the question about the climate change agreement. our view is it should be legally binding and that is what we are pressing for. the language in the communique is progress and i think america is pitching into these arguments, but of course, we would like them to go further. i think we have dealt with all the european stuff. in prime minister's questions but i would make this point. we should lift our eyes to the horizon and recognize, frankly she says it's back to usual service of the 1990s, but let me say, there's something very different and this government compared with the government of the 1990s, either of a labor persuasion or a conservative persuasion, is we have made the historic decision to let the people decide when it comes to europe.
10:29 pm
>> mr. speaker, i'm pleased to hear from the prime minister that it was time at the g-7 to consider the humanitarian tragedy in the mediterranean where huge numbers of people are drowning trying to flee conditions in their own countries. i agree with him that the long-term solution is development aid in the countries from which they come. but was the discussion of an international diplomatic effort and the giving of administrative and tenl technical support to the government of the failed state in libya which remains a lawless space through which huge numbers of people will continue to come unless and until some sort of stability is restored to the country. >> my right honorable friend this absolute identified a core part of the problem that needs to solve and solve quite urgently and it is have a government of national unity in libya. because of course we can offer and do offer technical assistance border security, training of libyans.
10:30 pm
we can offer those things now. but until there's a government in place, they don't really join up and make a comprehensive strategy. what we talked about was make sure foreign ministers and others were doing everything they can to support special representative and his work to form the government. once that is done then we can pour in the assistance to help them deal with the criminal gangs and to secure their borders. >> may i begin by thanking the prime minister for advancement of the statement are as much in the communique to be committed. as the first paragraph states that we're committed to the balance of freedom and democracy to the universal, to the rule of law and respect of human rights, fostering peace and security and we on these benches will be supporting human rights by supporting the human rights act in the weeks and months ahead. also in the communique, there are perhapses on the community.
10:31 pm
on specifics, on tax evasion and anti-corruption measures i'm sure the prime minister would like to confirm that every cooperation has been given to swiss and uk -- and u.s. legal authorities in relation to fifa. on the issue of trade the communique welcomes trade and transatlantic partnership. but the prime minister will be aware of concerns about the potential adverse impact on public service provision such as the national health service. what safeguards did the prime minister highlight as uk government requirements to protect the nhs? we've heard him say that there's no reason for concern. if there's no reason for concern, i see a good prospect for those safe gaurds being included in any ttip final deal. why did he not secure that on the face of the treaty? on foreign policy areas, i agree with the g-7 conclusions in relation to territorial integrity in ukraine and the
10:32 pm
rule of russia and the need to maintain sanctions against the russian state. however, i would wish to warn of the rest of the situation in eastern ukraine becoming a frozen conflict. anybody who has witnessed what is happening in eastern europe since the fall of the iron curtain will be aware of what's happened from apkazia and bosnia and while the immediacy of the situation is action there also needs to be immediate and long-term perspective for normalization. may it welcome the provisions regarding maritime order and maritime security. this is relevant in the pacific of course. it's also relevant in our northern european neighbor. and then i encourage uk government to actually take this seriously for a change. they didn't even rate a single mention in the last strategic defense security review. hopefully it will be included in the forthcoming spfr and, of
10:33 pm
course, the uk has not a single maritime control aircraft. and finally may i welcome the inclusion of my migration and refugees in the g-7's conclusions. i asked the prime minister about this last week. have we had any time to reflect on the appalling uk record and giving refuge to those fleeing the war in syria and elsewhere? does he know not agree should be working with this international college foremost amongst them and the european union for us all to take a fair share of those requiring refuge? >> let me thank the honorable gentleman for his response and take all of his points in turn. on maritime security, i think is right to raise the issue of the high north and the arctic should be carefully looked at and i will make sure that happens. i don't agree with him with a record of refugees to i think was an excellent record, with the second largest bilateral donor to make sure those people fleeing conflict in syria and iraq are properlily looked after. we do have a program for resettling, particularly bubble
10:34 pm
vulnerable families. but if he thinks the answer to a refugee crisis of tens of millions of people resettling as a result of that program, i think he is completely wrong. the answers got to be stabilizing the country and allowing those people to return. i think he's right about frozen conflict. one of the reasons we should take the problems of russian aggression in the ukraine so seriously is to be clear. we are not going to tolerate the situations that happened in georgia and elsewhere where frozen conflicts have been created. and i think it's important we make such a strong stand over sanctions rather than what happened with georgia where the international community moved on. on ttip i would say there's a real opportunity in raising false fears about potential privatization on the nhs coming out of ttip. in the english nhs, it is the commissioners of services who will make decisions and they invest over and over again in a
10:35 pm
national health service. in scotland the only person who can privatize the nhs in scotland in the scottish government. instead of raising false fears of what we should be doing is putting on the table bold proposals for opening up american markets. so, for instance the scottish knit wear manufacturer i visited recently that suffers from massive terrorism was built to sail into the u.s. he should spend his time looking after those businesses and those jobs and fighting for them. on the issue of tax evasion and tax avoidance in collaborating with the fifa investigation i am sure we can give that reassurance, but i will check carefully. finally, i would just say to him look, i believe in human rights and i think the best way to safeguard human rights is to have a british bill of rights. why not have the decisions made in british courts rather than in strasburg courts? that's the position of the government. >> mr. john baron. >> further discussions about russia and isil, the prime minister will be aware that
10:36 pm
during russia's annexation of the crimea, the fco did not have one in house climate expert at the height of the arab spring the fco on the ground had to be reformed. has the time now not come to greater investment in order to ensure and help navigate this increasingly uncertain world >> well, i can reassure my friend that the fco is hiring more russian speakers. but i would say what i get in tim bareo is a very, very hard standard. and i want to thank him publicly. >> thank you. >> we stopped training our forces in kenya and plan to do the same in canada. and, therefore, take a training holiday.
10:37 pm
we seriously undermine our own force readiness and undermine our own credibility. >> i think the honorable lady makes an important point. our armed forces benefit hugely from training in different countries and training in different conditions training in kenya and training in canada, as i understand it are going to continue. >> richard drake. >> thank you, mr. speaker. one thing is for certain, we don't want to sign up to anything that damages our economy detrimentally. can our honorable friend assure me that he will not sign up for anything that does that? >> i can certainly give me honorable friend that assurance. the argument i would make to skeptics about this issue is that britain has already taking some very steps to improve renewable xwalt.
10:38 pm
and actually now tsd in our interests that other ones sign up to those thing. >> you can see now that countries that previously tb at the back of the few, so i can even if you're a skeptic, it's game to get serious about the deal. >> some of my constituents pleased the prime minister on the issue of tax dollars dodging which robs developing countries that the tax revenue. two years the long, companies are still snapping their nose on the issue of tax. when does they expect to see tangible results in the measures on the promises needed at the g-7 summit. >> i would be a bit more positive. two things have happened. one is the countries have signed
10:39 pm
up for the automatic exchange of tax information which is vital. the culture of business is changing. businesses now know that the old discussions of how do we minimize our tax bill is not going to stand up to public scrutiny. we've seen company after company now, we've seen it with some of those in the world of hot drink, recognizing that they need to engage in this debate and start paying taxes in the country where they make their money. >> steven hammond. >> thank you mr. speaker. i commend the prime minister on the announcement that there is a commitment to mobilizing climate finance for developing nations. this is hugely significant. could you tell the house or update the house on when you can expect to see some of that mobilization come forward? >> my honorable friend is actually right. if we look at the components of the deal you clearly need europe to come forward with its offer, which we've seen but to
10:40 pm
me one of the things that will bring it altogether is to make sure the advanced world is bricking together funds so we can reassure states that there will be assistance to them as they mitigate against climate change and make the changes in their own economy that are necessary. britain has put a lot of money on the table. we now need others to do the same. >> the contributions of the right honorable member of the scottish nationalist part, prime minister renzi told the summit that 100,000 people are now crossing the medicine ter rannan in the 1st of january, 157,000 have died. i agree with the prime minister. this is a frustrating process. but the cartoon process does not seem to be working and the context is not doing its job. do we need another mechanism to
10:41 pm
try and deal with this problem? >> i thank the honorable gentleman for his question. i think the mechanism we need is to have a partner with whom we can work. all the other steps we take are vital for humanitarian reasons but they don't add up to a policy that will reduce this migration flow. the one place this is has worked in the past, the spanish efforts to stop people from going to the canary islands, is where they were work with governments, invest in security, invest no those areas. that is the model win it to follow. >> prime minister you previously spoke about
10:42 pm
conversations about large companies artificially shifting properties abroad. this has made people very angry. could you give us more detail? >> there are two things we are doing. one is working internationally and the piece of work about what is called base erosion trying to stop countries shifting projects artificially around the world in 90 countries sign up will make it there. the chancellor introduced the diverted profits tax. we see a company making lots of money in the u.k. but not present it with a tax bill. we were not waiting for it domestically. >> i welcome the prime minister's conversations with president bahari and the commitment to tackle boko haram in nigeria. he also mentioned discussions among tackling corruption. can you give us more detail about discussions and actions? >> first of all, i hope the honorable lady would agree with
10:43 pm
me that the election is actually a very important moment for nigeria because he won this election even though he was facing some pretty overwhelming odds in terms of what were the -- his opposing candidate's party was doing. and it's at the top of his agenda and his speech was a model of doing that. you saw the corruption in the army, saw the corruption in the oil department and industry and what britain is trying to say is that we are there as your partner and want to help you. and so the more that we can do to help you clean up this corruption, the better not only for people in nigeria, but frankly the people throughout the region and hereto. >> speaker, can i commend the prime minister and his statement on isil. it is a national security threat.
10:44 pm
president obama spoke about a developing plan, trying to cope are will he with bringing a shia militia under the iraqi army command. the sunni speaker of parliament is talking about the national guard and the kurds struggling to use cope. did he discuss with president obama the plan on redoubling the efforts? >> we had a lengthy discussion about isil because in my view, islam violence and extremism and terrorism is the greatest threat we face on the national security front. is very directly affect us here and frankly worrying how many people from would have gone to fight for isil. terms of the points he makes, he's absolutely right. we need to invest in the iraqi government and its capacity to bring the country together by being a government for all sunni, shia and kurd and having
10:45 pm
security forces that represent all sunni, shia and kurd. and we need to encourage president abadi to take steps in the direction while helping train forces, as well. >> as number is present in the last parliament now in the prime minister himself can testify, i'm not averse to running exchanges on statement for a fully because that is a democratic scrutiny requires. i simply point out there are two heavily subscribed opposition debates today and, therefore there is a premium upon brevity. >> mr. speaker, the g-7 lieders' separation makes reference to the people in the bay of benghor. does he agree with me it's time for the u.n. skt jerl to take care of this.
10:46 pm
>> we need greater action to represent all the people in burma. >> mr. speaker, i welcome the consideration being placed on tackling pandemics. can my honorable friend set up more details into how the uk search and development fund will heavy prevent infection of people here in the united kingdom? >> really, the discussion was around a couple of things. one, when the pandemic breaks out, we need fast erer action and that is why you need a team of medics to get out there and measure the situation which is why they are ready to go. the second thing is to put money into the development of medicines and vaccines and the other ways of coping with things when they happen. >> what assurance can the prime minister give from the g-7 discussions that any atlantic trade deal is going to be traded
10:47 pm
in free trade and not on rec latory standard dropped it in the interest of corporate interests. >> what i'd say to the honorable gentleman is i suspect it will be a combination of both those things. and i don't think we should shy away from that. the eu and america writing some of these rules together will actually make sure that we have good and decent standards rather than a race to the bottom. i think that should be seen as an advantage to the ttip bill. >> mr. chairman, the situation in ukraine has gone from bad to worse. if so, why hasn't more been done to increase sanctions against the russian federation, rather than a rolling over of existing
10:48 pm
sanctions? >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point, but there's been a mings mixed picture since the minsk agreement was signed. overall, there has been some sign of lower levels of violence and aggression. so we should recognize that. i think the decision to roll over the sanctions automatically in june is right with a decree clear warning, that if things were to get much worse, if to be, for instance a russian-backed push for more territory, that could lead to higher sanctions. >> mr. buddy sherman. >> mr. speaker can i point -- the -- he's put the speech on economic security was quite short. what did he say to those who criticized the g-7 that we have never actually learned the lessons of the world economic meltdown in 2008 and put together a policy and a set of regulations and a set of organizations that could prevent it happening again? >> what i'd say to the honorable
10:49 pm
gentleman is that actually the g-20 has been in many ways the key organizing body for driving for instance, changes on rules on bank regulation and capital requirements and reform of global institutions. and i think that helps because, of course, banking problems and meltdowns can happen in developing countries as well as advanced countries. the strength of the g-7 is yes, of course we discussed economic and trade issues, but we do have a very like-minded conversation about the big security challenges like for instance, isil and russia and frankly, it was helpful is that it was a g-7 because the conversation is that much more candid and frank. >> ed arga. >> thank you sir. the hard work of the british people including my constituents combined with our long-term economic plan have ensured our economy in the uk is growing. but external economic risks remain. can me friend enlarge on what discussions he had on those wider external risks and how to
10:50 pm
mitigate them? >> well, i think there are auto northbound of risks including the potential slowdown of the chinese economy. i think that was obviously discussed. i think in the margins of the g-7, there are a number of discussions and some around the table, as well, about the threats to the stability of the eurozone of the very unstable situation in greece. and that is of interest to all the members of the g-7. we are approaching some pretty crucial days where agreement needs to be reached in order to maintain the stability of a bunch of economies that are very big trading partners for brittant. >> jonathan edward. >> mr. speaker with further deployment of uk and u.s. troops in iraq, what measures has he put in place to guard against mention mission creep? >> i think one of the important things is to come back regularly to this house and discuss and debate what we are doing. what i'd say about this latest deployment is that it's in response to a request from the iraqi government these
10:51 pm
individuals, mostly involved in trading the iraqi troops on how to counter ied threats will save lives and i think that is a sensible approach for britain to take. in terms of what we are doing more broadly we are the second largest contributor in terms of the air strikes over iraq and that has been essential in shrinking the amount of territory that isil controls and making sure that the kurds have been able to maintain the situation in the kurdish regional authority. so regular reports back, but a clear statement from the dispatch box, this is not about trying to reinvade a country. this is about lepg the legitimate government of that country that is recognized by the u.n. to do the work that it knows is vital. >> mr. speaker, i went with john major when he was prime minister to meet boris yeltsin. i'm not sure sure it's in the british national interests that we're at logger heads in arabia and has my friend seen lord
10:52 pm
carrington's recent remarks that ukraine was always part of russia, that the u.s. was crazy to suggest ukraine could join nato one day and that henry kissinger agrees with him. >> what i'd say to my honorable friend is that we have not picked the fight with russia. russia has brought this upon herself by destabilizing and encouraging separatist toes take ukrainian territory. and as for whether ukraine is a country, i think we should recognize the ukrainian people themselves have decided it is a country, it is recognized by the united nations and the whole point we have to learn here is that redrawing the lines and maps of europe by force and end in disaster for everyone in europe, including the people here in this country. >> mr. speaker, the pledge on climate action is very welcome, but a new record says plants in g-7 countries are on track to cost the world 450 billion pounds a year by tend of the
10:53 pm
century. does the committee on climate change recommend we end this by 2020 but he put in place a policy framework to try and achieve that? >> well, we all want to see an end to unabated coal. but the key there is in the first bit, unabated. we need to make sure that we invest in carbon capture and storage so that we can accelerate the decarbonzation of electricity, but in a way that doesn't damage our economic interests, as well. >> i welcome the new focus on corruption and the plan for an anti-corruption summit in london. on syria and the call for a u.n.-led political transition, could the prime minister share with us a little bit more about what this would look like? if for example, a president and how we would arrive there? >> i'm not sure it's easy to identify an exact precedent. i think the point is simply this. that president assad himself, as i said in my statement, has
10:54 pm
become a recruiting sergeant for isil base on the way he's treated his people. but what everybody knows is a government is needed that can represent everyone in syria. clearly, it would be acceptable to have a government that was able to represent those people as well as the sunni majority. that sort of transition is what we should be aiming for. >> thank you mr. speaker. in iraq at the end of last year it was clear one of the biggest obstacles to defeating isil was the lack of sunni tribes and sunni people. what is the strategy of the prime minister and the leaders of the g-7 to bring on board the sunnis and get the iraqi government to change its position? >> well, the honorable gentleman's analysis of the situation is absolutely spot on. we won't succeed in iraq unless the iraqi government and the iraqi security forces have representation from both sunni
10:55 pm
and shia. so our strategy is not to try to do this for the iraqi government. it's to encourage the iraqi government to do it and work and say that we'll work alongside you. but in everything we do we should be encouraging them to reach out to the sunni tribes because in the end their government will only succeed if they represent all the people. >> mr. graham. >> how could i have forgotten the rules of wisdom? i apologize to the honorable gentleman. >> thank you, mr. speaker. islamic state is an enemy of civilization which is why it finds a coalition of 60 countries against it. it requires military defeat and the sooner that task is undertaken, the easier it will be. however, it is not going to happen if the regional powers are not coordinating their policies. what discussion was there at the g-7 about getting turkey iran and saudi arabia at the very
10:56 pm
least to be coordinating their policies towards islamic states? >> well, my honorable friend is right. that is required. important steps have been taken, not just president obama's meeting with all the gulf countries. i've had recent conversations with the turkish president and have visited turkey to discuss this. i'm not sure we'll be able to achieve the perfection of what he requires of getting everyone at the table at the same time in the same way but working with regional partners to make sure there's a coordinated approach. >> i find the prime minister for his statement and would raise two points. he raises a corruption and fifa to sadly have become synonymous with each other. i would ask him whether he thinks it would be appropriate that sepp blatter attends the women's world cup which is taking place at the moment given his promise to resign and given his inappropriate comments
10:57 pm
that women's football in the past that they should -- their shorts to make it more popular? >> i think the honorable lady raises a very important point and sepp blatter's track record on these things is very very disappointing. look sepp blatter said he's going to resign and in my view i should get out and resign. this organization needs more leadership, it needs to be cleaned up. >> mr. speaker, did my honorable friend have any indication to the other leaders whether they're going to make their commitments to 7% of g mr. i? >> what i'd say to my honorable friend is that actually for the first time i think in a number of g-7s and g-8s, we got the 0.7% compliment back into the text. so it's clear and there for all to see.
10:58 pm
but i would argue it's not just right for britain from a moral standpoint. but it increases our standing in the world that we are able to point out that we kept our promises and were able to use that money to enhance not only the economic standings of those countries, but also our insecurity, as well. >> i'm pleased that the g-7 discussed global poverty and the need to address it. but given the noble economists have all agreed that inequalities exacerbate growth, it has a negative influence on society. >> foifrt of all, the figure shows during last year's parliament inequality fell. but i would take issue about the
10:59 pm
probabilities for development in terms of the u.n. goals that we're going to be agreeing in september. of course we all want to see that. i would argue that eradicating extreme poverty, those people you know, living on almost nothing every day that is where we should really put the emphasis. >> mr. henry smith. >> thank you very much mr. speaker. i welcome the extremism bill that the government will be introducing. but can my honorable friend say what discussions with other g-7 leaders he had about the sharing of intelligence to help prevent people travel to go support isil? >> we did have discussions about this. there's obviously very good information sharing between britain and america. there's increasingly better sharing of information amongst
11:00 pm
european countries with the progress on the passenger name record issue where we need even more cooperation is clearly between countries like britain and countries like turkey that can sometimes act as a gateway for people joining isil. and it's there that we need to focus our efforts. >> kate green. >> the prime minister's announcement on investment to tackle, would he, and agree with me, the facts seen on drugs would only be effective if countries to the domestic health care population, was that discussed at the g-7 and what conclusions were drawn? >> the honorable lady was right, making sure that teams visit countries where pandemics start and making vaccines available is only a sticking plaster on top of a very large problem. you need stronger health systems in those countries and not is one thing our aid program is designed to deliver. >> mr. speaker, this country has

13 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on