participation were not, exchange structure, a government structure that will inform us how this is going to go forward. .. >> i think there's going to be a lot of variability. i really do. i think it's going to look very different in different places of

the country and i do think it will be an important story. >> bruce? >> i agree. perhaps auditable and cons, certainly enough to raise eyebrows. >> all right. [inaudible] >> let's see, we have somebody with microphones. please, because we are a c-span, we cannot takamatsu is a microphone in front of us. don't start talking until there is a microphone. i think this woman right here. yeah. >> hi, i am dr. caroline hockley. my late husband was smart slate in the clinton administration. my question is about risk-adjusted icon is something nobody has mentioned except dr. sharpstein briefly. the way the small group and

individual insurance -- health insurance has worked is by risk selection and people were essentially excluded. but going forward, unless this is controlled, it is possible that the company with the best plan will end up with all the sick people and that could terminate that plan very quickly. i wonder if any preparations were being made to do the risk adjustment because it's very easy when you have different plans to select healthy people buy something as a membership. >> anybody like to take that? >> to mitigate risk, there's a couple at the federal government is overseen. one where the states some options that will be running part of the program. we also have flexibility in

state law in the out years in the investment statement each do a better job. i think it's going to be an important issue. whether or not there's outright systems, i think selection is really a huge part of the cost. the fact that insurers have to pay each other to lower that. hopefully want to get to a point where it lowers below the point where we can compete a doing a good job and manage cost and a delivery system that, she'd better outcomes. to me it's like you want to love her the reward below where you actually get a reward for doing the right thing and hopefully dougherty plans. we have some very good plans thinking about the delivery

system and keeping it relatively, you know, stable starting place puts it so much better off in the future than where we are now for that kind of needing to have been. i can't say nothing will happen, but a lot of things make me think it will be less to do that. >> i would just add that in a way we need to go back to the future here and look at the initial implementation of medicaid. going back to the balanced budget act of 1997 and some of the processes that follow that, that act created the role of an independent enrollment broker for good reason because that was needed given what went on in the early days. as a consequence, when you really look at exchange operations are set up, we think it's very critical information

presented to consumers be down in a fair and unbiased manner. certainly a study published in health affairs in january this year pointed out participants in the commonwealth place program in massachusetts was parallel to what we expect in exchange plan offerings. 40% were presented difficult to understand. when you look across industries and forced into an a lot then, if the travel industry to the banking industry and ultimately the insurance industry that needs some form of assistance and the commercial insurance industry. while it's ideal to think about travelocity, the reality is there's large portions, 80% to 90% will never have applied for insurance before.

that availability of on partial object to implementation that's not overly complicated because decisions can be skewed with the presentation with too much information is also critical to ensuring a positive consumer experience that relates to this issue. >> let's see, right over here. and that was got two more. >> tanks. charlie clarke with government executive. budget question. how successful have the efforts by republicans in congress to be found than in terms of impact on the limitation? >> good question. in the press there is certainly a lot of talk about dss that the hub was not fundament secretary sebelius has been having to do that out of her discretionary fund. what else do we know about that?

>> well, we know there's been this debate. in fact, senator harkin who is concerned to certain activities to eventually find resources necessary. the estimates for what was required by treasury by hhs and the other regions these was quite substantial and there's no question it's had an impact on their ability and potentially going forward the ability of treasury to fully provide information sharing. >> anybody else? >> not as much in maryland for state-based exchanges and where the funding is going. >> we see this as a federal one. >> i don't think we know the exact numbers. there was money in the original legislation and we know as

institutions to take care of all the cost is his needed for implementation. more money is needed and it seems to me a peculiar strategy of governance to make legislation failed by appropriate in so little money can be properly administered. it seems to me one night perch to politics that is deplorable. >> and it is one of the things that is most instructive about your opening comments that medicare was stunned with administrators in the room and that this is done in a dramatically different way so we can expect -- >> it also highlights the remarkable challenge here again because of the state federal partnership expected. in a case of medicare you are dependent on a federal infrastructure and in this case you are dependent upon both. the navigators to be self funding. 2015 are to be fully funded at

their own operations so the expectation was that wasn't federal funds over the long term care the federal state responsibility and how that plays out by state is going to have a tremendous impact. >> exchanges are so funding as well so they are not a burden in the long run. it is the federal these are riskier. >> you also have this problem of the state insurance commissioners all have different levels of power. so i'm some states the state commissioner can turn down requests for premium increases and other states they don't have it. but another states they can't do that. that's why we hear a wide variety of speculation on what this is going to be the premiums because in some states they might really go as high as 25% or 30% and other states they

won't increase or the increase will be to minimize. >> the main story in premium is not the level. it's a diversity of impact across different classes of insurance purchasers. some people will see big reductions. some people will see big increases and the average effect i don't think captures the amount that will occur. >> one thing to mention his increases the number of insurers interested in participating to implementation in different companies coming into the state cricketing interests of medicaid because it's really created an interesting dynamic to the point in the lead up of the proposed rate was a lot of discussion about one group is doing versus another group. i think it's part of the theory here that has been a level playing field for the company

would induce some competition on price. i think we can see that happening. not just in maryland, but other places where they improvise recently see what other people put up there. >> i think you'll also see plan awake and see what happens rather than play at first. we don't get a state-by-state how many will participate in that will be a question of what they're looking on in terms of the market. >> this is why it's possible to be such divergent predictions about this. the gentleman in the blue they are, you have questions right appear. here's your microphone. >> hi, and cpa. you kind of touched on the topic topic -- [inaudible] >> you look like one. >> they have a perverse incentive to wait until they get

sick. how do you believe the federal government can convince individuals to enroll in a plan with predictions that premiums will increase to two dh age remains the aca? >> i don't think we have a clue. arguably there was an accommodation made in the legislation that allows for those under the age of dirty for a catastrophic and that potentially would be less costly. again, it's the calculation that an individual makes us to the cost of the penalty and the risk of essentially the cost of the coverage. essentially there's a compression, but again it will be a state-by-state basis in terms of what's available on the exchange and whether or not the young and visible signs better use of money are whether they'd rather wait and see.

>> any other comments? >> taxachusetts to do a better job at that. i felt some of their marketing materials were directly aimed. >> massachusetts -- [inaudible] >> at night to ask a question venture, my massachusetts race. with respect to getting small employers to come into the exchange, they didn't do a good job. could you say something about which you expect to happen in maryland? >> without a lot about that. we made an important decision early on and asked the people who had worked on that but maybe they would've done a little bit differently. first, we realize small employers have roots to getting incentives now and is usually go through the broker community and a third party.

it dawned on me when i met with a representative of the physicians group about health reform and he said before i talk the positions, what i heard her my broker was -- okay, that's helpful. something like 90% of people because they are buying health insurance. they may be doing payroll, entire mac, all these different things that are not interested in breaking out or most of them are not interested in breaking up of insurance, going to a separate website and managing not epperly. we decided to do a further third-party in a straighter the opportunity to plug into our exchange and how their system so people can continue to get coverage if it makes sense to go into the exchange through the normal channel. there's an awful lot on our website that walks of all the

things and different models available to them and a lot of work on the small groups technical components to accomplish it. so we'll see. what is the value to a small group? in maryland we have a guaranteed issue, said the other potential value as the employee choice and a small employer i find it able to see if you compare your picture choice rather than one. how that plays out, i don't know. this is a project lower enrollment initially. if the individual market is in october, we want people cover to stay covered and it's a big challenge right up front. maybe it is a sprint on that side of marketing marathon for the small group market. if we have a few businesses gets bigger as the value gets more obvious, i think that is fine.

>> let's see, ratepayer, the gentleman on the i/o there. >> hi, i am still all men. there's a lot of talk about the the variability and are just wondering how down. are there enough on the side that likely to work very well that there will be less congressional resistance and be able to continue as opposed to almost everything in failure and easy scale? >> i would add a question i was going to actually ask henry because he said recently in the apropos of your question, he said recently the 2012 election kept the affordable care act to live. the 2016 election will decide whether it survives. >> in light of senator mcconnell statement, with which i quoted earlier, i may

have been two years late. but what i had in mind of course as long as president obama is in office it will remain the law of the land. the question he raises on a given and there, we really don't know. we are looking forward to ticer t. to enormous variability around the country. we can count on the fact various reporters and bloggers will grasp the mistakes and hold them close to their hurt and spread them around assiduously. at what i hope and i really pray is that those like myself and i suspect all of us appear on the platform think that the affordable care act is on alan to step forward that should be built on and improved bulwark just as tired to talk about the

success stories and the advances made, the subsidies claimed, the people insured, the continuation of a slowdown in the rate of growth of health care costs reduction in insurance overhead from the competition by josh described. if we do our job well enough, it will be an extended and rough voyage, but one that can get us where we want to go. >> there is another question over here. somebody else had raised their hand. yes, rate your current. [inaudible] asian-american pacific islanders, i want to bring into focus we don't have that calculation it appears that

calculation has been increasing quickly and many of us are self-employed and many of us are not in the habit of having health insurance until they are very sick and many of us rely on families and many just stay home and die at home. we may not be a burden to the whole system. i feel that the cost of health care committee is a county with convention education, treatment and also an exchange education can also buy a significant role. is there anything in that calculation and i also want to check in with american friends because we all in a layer in a similar vote. is there a plan for that? >> i'd be happy to jump in.

there is this program, which depending on your thesaurus accounts for all that. we have the flexibility to decide how to structure data. we could've done that that with one come any, one approach the whole state. for a very diverse state in maryland. we could've come up with a thousand different federal grants with tiny amounts of money and we did this to public comment. we had a whole advisory committee come together and we wanted dividing the state into six areas family asked groups to come together under the agency with multiple groups including grassroots organizations that work specifically with different parts of the population to come together and putting proposals. we have six lead agencies in more than 50 individual groups that are all part of one of

those organizations, including groups that target and have tremendous trust within those communities. part of it is you can fail to be something in a language, but if you don't know who the person is talking to you, you may not relate at all. what we've got is a terrific set of partners around the state and they are now in the process of getting trained. this'll cover the navigator program and our goal has been rather thin specified but it is, we asked people to come together. and montgomery county, very nearby, the montgomery department brought in their best partners to serve all different communities. so we think being successful is not a one-size-fits-all message. we have to reach into a diverse array of groups. >> i would agree completely. we can also look at the experience of other public health nsa programs like the children's health insurance

program which started small but his corner covered 86% of individuals that qualify. one of the reasons to that success to dr. sharfstein's point is focused on the appropriate means of calculating the last mile to the election and when you consider 50% of the 50 million on american uninsured have either basic or below basic health literacy. that's a critical point. ensure the broad patchwork quilts and others can be is to reach those individuals is critical and it's incumbent on partners in the process such as myself to work as we have historically as we go individuals and medicaid with a network of 400 community-based organizations. it has to be thoughtful, engaging process data can be something you think about in the 11th hour.

>> last week we had a forum with 130 faith leaders all about the affordable care act. his big mac tom, last question here. >> thank you. tom mann, brookings. the expansion of medicaid was of course a huge part at aca and moving towards universal coverage. the court put a bit of a crank into those plans. could you give us your assess and of where that stands now with the state and what we can ask back over a period of time? will it become more attractive and be dumped by more states? what happens to individuals and state that rejects the expansion? >> well, i think as is the answer in a number of these

questions, we don't know. it is in fact a state-by-state discussion. some have made a decision, some have not. some are as we speak meaning and considering if you're a's request for a legislature wants to overcome what the governor has decided. what happens to those individuals will depend on the state. one of the odd quirks of the legislation and have a look to correct me if i'm wrong. there's an element of the population who would be eligible under the expansion who will not be eligible for subsidies to very low income. others will be eligible for subsidies and can go through the exchange and if the federal exchanger partnership exchange for state run exchange. there's a small group of individuals who will not qualify for subsidies. but be exempt because they will be low when come, but essentially will remain

uninsured. will depend on the state, with the size of the group looks like. the history of medicaid suggests in the famous chip that came in overtime. whether that will be the case this time around remains unclear. the federal funding, short-term 100% will expire. it's available during that time and goes away and drops to 90. state to look at the economic implications for the state over the long term and whether or not they will take a greater burden or not. other changes included in the medicaid brokering for part of the aca and a variety of other things. the reduction in dish payments so there's tension in terms of the reduction in safety net payments in states that may not be expanding population. there's a lot of that complexity , which is still quite uncertain and will play two

legislative sessions in the states. >> could you want to add me think of that? >> i was a obviously in washington a lot of politics of the affordable care act is carried into lot of state legislature. overtime is a question of this is benefiting people and what are the politics of that? when i go over and maryland are your people who need coverage. there aren't a lot of people who benefit from medicaid and expands in some states and not others. there'll be politics without also. you've got maybe some of the posturing or narrow politics of medicaid of delivering health care. certainly maryland was delivering health care and overwhelms any other consideration in the finance of the offer are pretty good.

i think there is something to be said that i think over time could change. >> to josh's point, underscoring that among those who are most at it in those states that have to date not expanded are the provider groups and its hospitals and physicians and others who are actively engaged in talking with legislators and trying to make the point josh's making, which is over one term the value of coverage will accrue to the benefit of states. i think it's going to be a state-by-state conversation. >> is pretty straightforward. every tax here in maryland or any others it is paying taxes to support the extension of medicaid in all the states adopted it. if they don't come into the system, turning down 100% payment and then 90% payment for

coverage within their states. this is about as close to the road of vito corleone he making an offer you can't refuse as you can get. by concluding comment will be a senior official of the national government when asked that very question you posed as of 2018, how many states will not be in medicaid? he said if governor perry is still governor of texas, one. [laughter] >> on not know, i have to cut this off. i want to thank sheila burke, josh sharfstein, henry aaron and bruce caswell for being with us today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> general welsh and i have testified before congress on the air first budget proposal for fy 13, certainly a dynamic environment. we reiterated our concerns about the impact of sequestration on the force structure of the readiness in the modern nation of our air force. the ill effects of sequestration are already taking a toll on our air force. 12 combat squadrons have stopped flying and important training has been canceled. weapon system sustainer productions will delay made and come increase costs and create that club. the impending billion furlough will hamper us further. it will impact morale and reduce productivity across the air

force. we have been consuming our first readiness for several years and look kaneda focus the resources available to make combatant commander requirements that with with this deep in lake fy 13 budget reductions brought on by sequestration, the readiness hole we have been trying to dig out of just got deeper and we are facing a readiness crisis from which it will take many months to recover. ..

through compensation and given our current focus on trying to improve readiness, it's very likely that out here reduction in the budget control act will require further cuts to the programs. as advanced technologies proliferate against the globe the context would put at risk the air force capabilities this nation will need in the decades ahead. despite the near-term and long-term concerns, we are working to ensure that our most significant priorities remain on track, including the fifth generation joint strike fighter and the long-range strike bomber. a particular amount to highlight

a milestone on the 46 tanker program in one state we announced the third and reasonable alternative for the yen at and the first operating basis. this is a disciplined and deliberate process included in the enterprise look that started with 54 basis and narrowed that down which yielded a three good candidates through the initial base. the final basing decisions are expected for the bases in the spring of 2014. >> there was a portion of today's pentagon briefing and a reminder you can see the entire event tonight 9 p.m. eastern on c-span2 or any time online at c-span.org. earlier today a fema a vague description of the transition of

an empty building to a joint field office for state, fema and other fee federal agencies in oklahoma city. this will be used as an administrative center to process disaster relief claims for people affected by monday's tornado. officials say more than 3,000 people have registered claims so far with fema. >> we started a couple days ago working on the empty building as part of the process we have come in and have set up some sheet rock drywall, check out the air conditioning and worked out the space for people to come and work. it's not a place for people to come to register the process. >> their application is processed in the joint field office and that is part of the

operation. another part of the operation is we have had mitigation people here. it eliminates the effect of disaster and future disaster. normally we are here until we no longer need. i have a very good a joint field officers. i've known of others like that for hurricanes or earthquakes, to come three, four years. by that time the transition as long term. i want you to take good care of all of the furniture and ornaments in the house and not let them get lost or broken. i want to find everything just as it is now.

tuesday education secretary arne duncan testified on capitol hill concerning the president's 2014 education budget request. it includes $71 billion of discretionary funding for the department, a 4.5% increase over the previous budget year. the secretary also address the no child left behind waivers from student loan interest rates, a pell grants along with high school and college graduation rates. the representative of minnesota chairs the house education committee meeting with representative george miller serving as the ranking member. >> the tornadoes that swept across central oklahoma yesterday afternoon. according to recent reports coming and we were checking this a few minutes ago as many as 91

people lost their lives and hundreds more injured. the death toll includes young children many of whom were seeking shelter at local elementary schools. emergency responders and volunteers are putting themselves in harm's way to rescue loved ones and for the safety of all of those my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families and people of oklahoma and i know that your store as well. >> we all have a sense of sadness and shock at what took place in moore, oklahoma. we heard our colleague. it's his home town described the tragedy and the numbers got worse but the amazing response

to help one another and first responders i join you at giving them our very best spots and prayers. >> let's take a minute to honor our victims and families with a moment of silence. >> thank you. the committee will come to order. good morning and welcome back, secretary duncan. we realize your time is valuable to speak about the president's budget proposal. i would like to begin with an overview of what's in the administration for the upcoming fiscal year. the president has asked for more than $71 billion of funding for the department of education up

5,000,000,003,000,000,000 from the year before pity if this is on top of the request for $7 billion of mandatory funding for the pell grants, $17.5 billion to reform the teaching profession, and 1.3 billion for the new universal preschool program bringing the total budget proposal to a staggering $97.1 billion. without question the president's budget for the part of education has exploded over the last five years. the roughly $60 billion of the department 2,009 seems almost reasonable by comparison. yet despite a significant increase of education spending we haven't seen any measurable in preference in the student performance order education rates and it's time to acknowledge the fact putting more money in the system isn't the right answer to the challenges facing the classrooms since the passage of the education act federal spending in education has increased nearly every single year but we just are not seeing results. so we need to work together on the new way forward for will

better serve students and taxpayers. let's discuss an item that's not in the budget. >> the first time i saw you we were sitting in a corner talking about this subject and that is the individual with disabilities education act. once again the number is simply appalling. the government is supposed to fund up to 40% of the cost of educating students close special needs of the budget doesn't even come close to that figure. in the budget request president obama remains at 15, 15%. instead of meeting our commitments and improving initiatives the administration continues to propose more spending for new programs. instead of more funding the president proposed an expansive early childhood initiative. while we recognize the value of

quality early and are learning experience we must remember programs are already out there and putting head start and the child care development block grant and preschool programs nationwide. reforming and improving existing programs throughout the education system should take precedence over new initiatives and i believe this is one the area of congress the administration can work together. a large part of the effort must be real writing in the secondary education act. while i have my concerns in the process, i recognize the importance of the states and school districts and the law. however this must be done through the full reauthorization of law and not executive fiat. mr. secretary, you and i agree on the local control and you and i agree we must empower our parents and education system of support school choice understand you and i agree teachers should be judged on the ability to motivate students in the classroom. you have been quoted in the press stating that he won the congress to reauthorize the law the committee will soon renew its efforts to rewrite the

elementary secondary education act and this time i ask for the administration's leadership as we work to advance legislation in the house and the senate. let me end on a positive note. i appreciate that like moving student loan interest rates back to the market-based system. the committee approved a bipartisan support the smart solutions for students act legislation that mirrors the proposal to tie the student loan interest rates to the ten year treasury note. i'm grateful for the time that you have spent working with us on this proposal mr. secretary, your input was valuable to be a i hope the administration will work with us to move this quickly through the legislative process and to the president's hand before the interest-rate cliff hits many students on july 1st. again thank you for being with us today and i would like to

yield for the democratic member of the committee mr. miller for his opening remarks. >> thank you mr. chairman and secretary duncan for joining us here today to discuss president obama's agenda for transforming education in america. this hearing comes of the time students and schools are making the transition. transitions to do new academic standards, new assessments, and accountability and school improvement systems and teacher and principal evaluations. however in all of this movement forward like your that students and parents have lost their federal partner creating an uncertain environment as a result of the congressional inaction. there's a barrier to rewrite the secondary education act and the heavy handed automatic budget cuts and the sequestration. there is the danger of getting more than $20 billion, getting more than $20 billion in the supplemental nutrition program that helps low-income families keep food on the table and students prepared to come to school. there's the threat of even more college debt on to the students and families and continued threat of the republican budget proposal the would drastically

cut education resources pitted as reported just last week the department of education is facing a reduction of funding on top of the cuts already made in the sequestration. you may have noticed they prepared to send the budget forward with improvements and the cuts fall on education and we don't even know if that will get out of the committee. congress failed to provide support for them exceeded in the time of massive transformation. the past two years republicans have released the budget with giveaways to the wealthiest americans at the expense of educating children. this year isn't any different. it keeps in place the gutzman as sequestration will also calls for more draconian cuts of education programs across the country in contrast i'm glad to see president obama recognizes education is an investment and not in expense. it seeks to ensure to retain our global competitiveness. the obama budget proposes that

it has to start earlier for quote a comprehensive early childhood education programs to investing in greater access to high-quality preschool child care fall/winter a home visitations is a proven way to close the achievement gap and strengthen school readiness and prepare the next generation for high school jobs. president obama outlined goals of the nation in quitting college and career readiness in turn is the united states as a world and quote courage and vision rates. the budget negatively impact students by making it harder to go to college and harder to pay off debt and will eliminate the subsidy and allow interest rates to double for subsidized student loans to add insult to injury and it would put more debt to pay down the deficit. the students and families would pay a high interest rate under the republican proposal even if interest rates doubled. students would be better off letting the interest rates

double and that is not acceptable. this plan has low-income students to pay down debt while asking nothing for more fortunate to pay their fair share of taxes. we can do better and must do better as the democratic colleagues pointed out last year education is a vital part of public good we must serve the public investment and get back to the business of giving legislative work. two years ago you charged congress to fix no child left behind but since then the congress remained at a standstill in the face of the inability to act you've given 37 states plus washington, d.c. the relief for parts of ncnb that no longer work for and in need of change. a dozen waivers are pending and i would rather the congress achieve the full reauthorization of the understand why your action is necessary. that said i have serious concerns over the decisions the department has made in granting those and how some of the states have implemented them. we see some states listening their focus on student subgroups

and weakening the impact the performance targets and moving away from focusing on gerberding students with a regular diploma and a reasonable amount of time. i would remind you the key to the federal education is to protect and promote equity. i imagine you are beginning to plan how you consider the removal of these by the state. as you do why would urge you to hold a high regard to insist with the changes are necessary and you must be the conscience of the nation resisting temptation to focus on what is good for of walz. i wish we didn't need to discuss the renewal and i wish we were working on a bipartisan fashion to renewal this the way that we've done for many years over the history of wall. it's the only way we can get a bill to the president desk unfortunately it does not appear that we are on that track so i urge you to insist the school said heidi expectations and give educators the tools they need to meet those expectations and

implement the proposals made by almost every governor across the nation to improve the school system with the help they are getting. the congress cannot turn its attention to the full bipartisan reauthorization of the elementary secondary and also the higher education act so we can work out a bipartisan long term fix for the student. thank you. >> pursuant to the committee rule all committee members permitted to submit written statement to be included in the hearing record and without objection the record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the record and other extraneous material referenced to be submitted in the official record. it's now my pleasure to introduce the distinguished witness. he is known to all of us and i just want to make a couple points i always find interesting the secretary was confirmed on inauguration day january 20th,

2009. he had been with us quite a while mr. secretary. and just to show he's still here and from 2001 to 2008, he was the longest serving big city superintendent in the country. perserverance comer esters secretary. we are glad to have you. the floor is yours. >> thank you members of the committee i want to begin on the oklahoma situation. i spoke last night with the superintendent who did fantastic job. whenever we can do to help out in the situation to put in place to call to the superintendent susan pearce she's a veteran that is due to retire at the end of june and i want to thank all of the teachers and first responders there's been significant loss of life of children not just in schools but amazing work done by teachers and add them as traitors and first responders and all of our thoughts and prayers are with them this morning.

i am pleased to be able to talk with you today about president obama's vision for investing in education and the ways that ensure opportunity for every child and they delivered a strong return on investment for the taxpayers' dollars. that is so important especially in the tough economic times like this. as you walk through this conversation i'm going to ask you to visualize and keep in the back of your mind a 4-year-old little girl because of the end of the day this isn't just about programs or accounts of budgets it's about the consequences and the choices that we make for families and children. i think and i desperately hope we all agree improving our education not come is a vital national interest that we all share. the decisions we make will have an impact on our economy, on our economic competitiveness and on that four-year-old girl's chance having a life she deserves as part of a thriving middle class. that is the american value but

right now frankly it is danger. you've already heard we have lost our place as the global leader of college completion of the ranked 14th. we should frankly be embarrassed there is no badge of honor that we have fallen so far behind our international competitors. we want good jobs to stay in this country and not migrate overseas. here's another indicator that should concern us. start by looking at what is happening in employment for young adults. in 2000 we are doing better than france, britain, japan, germany and canada but by 2011, we are doing worse than all of them. why? david the pulitzer prize-winning "new york times" economic writer said and i closed the united states has lost its large lead in producing college graduates and education remains the most successful job strategy and a

globalized economy that's why we are working so hard to improve opportunities for every child to make the united states the global leader in college completion again. we've been working for four years to raise the standards and improve teaching establish strong systems and the technology data to fix the most broken schools and make college more accessible and affordable and we have made real progress. next slide please. mr. chairman have we made progress and i think while the progress isn't fast enough we have a way to go honest answer is there has been progress. high school graduation rates are the highest level in over three decades and for the first time we are on track to the 90 present high school growth of asian rate by the year 2020. we've talked about the job aspect young people dropping out. in the past three years from 2008 to 2011 we have 700,000

fewer children attending. that is a big step in the right direction. those people now have a much better chance of not just graduating then going on to some form of higher education. we have gone in terms of pell grants to the english language learners and folks born with a silver spoon in their mouths from 2008 to 2010 we went from to 9.4 million recipients, more than a 50% increase and these are young people that are often the first in the family to ever have the opportunity to graduate from college. then the enrollment rate in college has gone up significantly particularly on the african-american and latino population as we think it is so important in the country that is becoming the majority minority this is the face of the country as we move forward.

compared to the 22% in 2000 and african-americans, 38% today so a long way to go but feel very good about that. both you and congressman miller talked about the flexibility we provided in this case and up to 37 states we think that is going in the right direction. we would love to fix the child left behind but until congress gets its act together we are going to partner with states to make sure they are not stuck with the law that is outdated and has a perverse incentives. we have a lot of hard work ahead of us. to many low-income kids simply are not receiving the education they need to reach the middle class and let's look at these numbers.

96% of kids from the highest income groups complete high school. it's almost a given while less than two-thirds almost 63% come from the lowest atomic tile. the next compels us to act. fewer than one of ten eventually graduate from college compared that to the high-income students moving in the diploma a huge difference about comes. think about what that does and how that hurts them as a country and jobs and in terms of international competitiveness and what it means for the lives of children and families trying to skate poverty. how do we change the odds? i want to read a quote from james a nobel prize-winning economist at the university of chicago who says investing in the disadvantaged children is a

rare public policy with no equity efficiency trade-off. it reduces the inequity associated and at the same time it raises the productivity of the society at large. what is the most important single thing we can do an education to change the outcome site just talked about? i am convinced it's in the high quality education, preschool. on average the average child from the low-income family starts kindergarten the start 12 to 14 months behind their peers and language development and pre-reading skills that is unacceptable. and we know how to fix that. as the professor says this is one of the few public investment with no trade-off because the return on investment of high-quality preschool is so high. today quite frankly in the country we are not yet serious about preschool. the united states ranks 28 among

the oecd countries in the moment of 4-year-olds in the early learning and maybe that isn't surprising the united states also ranks 27 among the countries in public funding for early learning. if we expect to compete effectively in the global economy we have to invest in what matters the most. the presidents preschool for all proposal can be a game changer expanding assets and quality for the kids and families and communities that need it the most it is a major investment to tackle the major issue. think about that four-year-old girl, whether she's from goodhue county minnesota or winston-salem north carolina our san diego she deserves the support of the environment. she needs the chance to develop both her cognitive and non-cognitive skills. she may not have a home life that can pick up that slack but we can help support and strengthen the struggling families. that girl deserves assets.

our international competitors are ahead of us. james zimmerman the former ceo of macy's and procter and gamble have written and i quote universally available prekindergarten is not only the right thing to do but the smart thing to do in other countries have realized this. china set the goal of getting 70% of all children three years of prekindergarten education. why is it the smart thing to do? because of the return on investment. he found for every dollar we invest in preschool that the dollar returned $7 just in public funds. some of that comes from greater productivity and other supports. it comes from reduced cost of crime. preschools and presence where we

want to invest, what costs less and what helps the society more? the answers are very obvious. affordable high-quality early learning is the most important thing we can do in education to help children and help to strengthen families. but i can tell you what does not help in continent cuts to programs serving the most vulnerable students. especially since it is up for a vote this week i must address the house appropriations committee proposed 2014 allocations that represent a cut of 22% from fy 13 sequester level. cutting education in that way would be baffling self-destructive move that would devastate efforts to improve our international competitiveness. it's the wrong thing to do for our economy and would represent the young government dumbing down america. the cuts will apply the damage of sequestration which continues to hurt low-income and special needs students and young

families counting on him to start programs, military families, native american children and communities whose schools rely on impact aid. but together we can choose other past and make smart strategic long-term investments. let's return our focus to plan what positive. president obama early learning investment is the front bookend of the cradle to the career pipeline that aims to prepare students for college and for work. we are working to strengthen the pipeline with an emphasis on the college completion which has become the ticket to the solid middle class life. central to that effort as keeping the rates low on the loans that will require your action before july 1st to prevent the rates from doubling.

the right thing to do thank you. i look forward to your questions and on all federal student loans. as you know, the basics of your plan, the administration's plan falls largely in line with our goals for student loan interest rates. for example, your proposal moves to market base interest rate on all loans. our proposal moves to market base interest rate on all loans. your proposal is based off the ten year treasury note. so is ours. you have three different formulas for calculating student loan interest rates. i thought it would be a little

better to narrow it down to two. we can talk about it. we aim to get our proposal as close to the budget neutral as we could and ended up with a saving of $959 billion over seven years. your proposal is a little different costing $29.8 over five years and saving $6.7 billion over ten. protecting children and trying to find common ground our bill includes a reasonable interest cap. your legislation does not include a cap but expands the income base repayment program bringing the total cost of your program to $33.4 billion with $3.1 billion in savings over ten years. i would say our proposal is close. and others agree. i want to quote for a moment from "washington post" editorial. yesterday -- it says, quote, this year president obama

proposed pegging loan rates to the rate at which the government borrows plus a modest markup. on thursday the house education work force committee endorsed a similar policy. the bill may reach the house floor this week. it will indeed reach the house floor this week. continuing backers of the president's plan and those behind the house say the proposals are designed to be budget neutral over ten years. there's no reason to delay passing such a policy, close quote. so, mr. secretary, we have competing idea up here. i want to get you on the record to where the administration stands. we are going go to an interest rate pegged to the market for a long-term solution or keep kicking the can down the road? >> i think congress not just in this instant we have to take the tough issues together on in a bipartisan way and thing for the long haul. we are very interested in long-term solution.

we're interested in it being budget neutral. not trying to reduce the deficit on the back of students. i appreciate your thoughtfulness and work with you and other members and the idea of coming back every two years to fix something. the real challenges the country face and going on today in oklahoma. the fact we can't think long-term and take a tough issue, deal with it, and move on to other issues i don't understand that thinking. we are interested in long-term fix. we are interested in it being budget neutral. we look forward to you and others to find common ground. >> thank you. i hope we can continue to work together as we bang it through the legislative process over the next couple of week. i mentioned this briefly earlier today. i'm going ask you give me information for the record. as you know the budget regulatory act since 1980 requires federal agencies to publish in april and october

semiregulatory agenda describing economically suggest regulatory actions that are being developed. further, executive order 12866 -- i might win it yet. requires agencies to public every six months of regulatory agenda including all regulations on development during the twelve. months. last year the first time since 1980 we had the administration that didn't publish the spring agenda at all. skipped it. when the fall came due. they let it past until they published it on december 21st. we're in a new -- year we haven't seen the agenda. can you tell us when the department of education submitted the input to omb. >> there you go, thank you very much. well done. that's why you bring them. a lot smarter than i.

>> they're all smarter than us. >> my time is about to run out. i want to make the point that the administration brought forward a new proposal. you explain it and talk about the early education for 4-year-olds in the country. it's a cost of over $70 billion for a ten-year period. you really didn't do anything for ieda. when i sit down with principals and teachers and super about toes and parents at round tables in the my district and ask what is the single most important thing the federal government can do for you, it's to step up and meet the federal government's obligation -- obligation to fund special ed. once again i'm disappointed, mr. secretary. my time has expired. mr. miller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, thank you very for your comments on the allegations. thing is just a dagger that aimed at the heart of education and huge ramifications for the

schools. i would say it's a big difference between your plan and the president 'plan and the republican's plan you want students to get the long-term benefit of the low interest rates of the day as oppose to the available rates which locks them in a higher rate later on and don't know what the cost of college is going to be. i want to go to a point i was making with respect with the waiver. i want to make very clear that in understanding between no child left behind as with the efda perhapses no child left behind was more successful. it's a fundamental civil rights law in the country. that's how president saw it, you may -- had the bigotry of low expectations for many students inside the american education system. the fact was that these students were hidden, their performance

was washed out by averages and constant changing of the benchmarks. we can't go back there. i'm glad to see what is happening on the graduation rate. we have to understand that the graduation rate has to be real and we now see some states suggesting that want to do something sub ged and maybe over six years what have you. i have no problem trying to recover students that didn't make the four-year cycle. we have seen successful efforts in new york and elsewhere to do it with the larger cities. but, you know, the message before no child left behind the student couldn't read the diploma. now it's what does the diploma mean? we have to maintain the integrity in the system. as you go through the renewal around the question. we had dropout factories that were making ayp.

they happened to be losing 50% of the students. we cannot let states do that as they seek relief from the tough chore of getting excellence on behalf of our students and proficiency on behalf of our students. point made. family, i just want to thank you so much and the president president for emphasizing early childhood education. it's clear the benefit of early childhood education. i realize there's a fad among the educational elites suggesting that perhaps it makes no difference, it really doesn't make any difference. i always find that interesting when you know how much rich people are prepared to pay for the early childhood education and development opportunities for their children. people pay $30, $40, $50, $60 ,000 a year for the experience. in washington, d.c., seeking to have their child have the advantage starting school. the difference they make is they then take their childhood high

quality environment and put them a good school. so we put them in to a terrible school and say, oh, it didn't work. i would lose confident if i was in some of the schools. i think we have to understand it's a continuum all of the sciences we learned about brain development, about skills qoment, about have job lair and all of those skills tell us it's a wise investment. as i understand i know we're in the drafting stage on the president's program. basically he's providing money to states for states to make the decisions about all they have to do is being willing invest in high quality. to improve the quality of the existing system and expand the system. they decide how they want to allocate this in what i haven't seen. it's not about us a telling the states but providing resources to help them meet the demand and the quality issues. >> senator, your point. on the first point of

maintaining a high bar hopefully with reauthorization you have my commit. you've been a champion. i appreciate your leadership so much. one of the biggest benefit of the -- waivers which i don't think people understand, there are literally, literally hundreds of thousands of children with special needs, minority children, who were invisible under no child left behind. it was not the intend but that's what happened. they are holding themselves accountable for children that didn't exist. it's a huge step in the right direction to maintain the bar as we go forward. on the house budget be clear i appreciate your commit trying to fund more with the special needs children. with the house appropriations 302 b. allocations, there would be a cut in the funding over $2.4 billion. it's not going the direction you proposed. and the investment in early childhood education rewould reduction to young people being

labeled special education and reduce the costs overtime. it's the best, mr. chairman, congressman miller, it's the best investment you can make. when you have a nobel prize winning economist who comes to this and talk about minimum to seven to one return on investment. how many investments do they make where they get that? we have to stop -- thinking short term. the benefits are fifteen, ten, thirty years out. politicians too often are wired to think about short term. that's the election cycle. we invest in early childhood education. today less than in three in ten of our children have access to high quality. we have achievement gaps. we can fix this at the front end. make the right investment. make sure it's high quality. it's not a mandate to states. it's a option. i'm hopeful we see governors in a bipartisan way, republican and

democrat, who are investing very significantly in early childhood because they get it. they understand it. we want to partner with states that that's are interested in investing themselves. >> gentleman's time has expired. just to comment, mr. secretary. i do battle with my own party on special ed as well. whatever those issues are, it doesn't change the fact that once again, the president has -- in my judgment ignored that what should be a commitment and obligation. thank you for being here it's been the center 6 intense scrutiny from the higher education scrutiny and members on both sides of the aisle and congress. as you know the court invalidated several of the regulations. yet you repeatedly announced the department plans to reregulate both gainful employment and the distance education piece of state authorization. the house had strong bipartisan

vote opposing both of the regulations. why do you continue to pursue flawed what regulations? what what changes are to the regulations are you considering. >> part behalf we're doing is hear public comment. we welcome your feedback and your staff's feedback. what we do simply is where you have on the gainful side if we are going hit the president's goal, we need everybody producing students who are graduating with real skills. >> are you willing -- mr. secretary, are you willing to make the gainful employment apply to everybody in higher education? >> we need to talk to a number of issues. we want to make sure that real training is leading to real jobs. where that's happening we. to see that happen more often. when you have folks struggling finale and not have a get a good paying job and in a worse financial -- i think that's a

poor use of taxpayer dollars. we train animals. i i remain concerns, mr. secretary, about the current state authorization regulation and newly announced rulemaking session. it's one thing to say that states must authorize institutions that operate within the states. it's entirely another to dictate precisely how the states are to do it. and then if you don't agree with with it, punish the students attending the institution in the state. aren't you --. >> we used to lead the world in college graduation rates. today we are twelfth. we should be ashamed of that. we want to make sure that

significant taxpayer dollars going institutions and doing a good job of educating young people. you issued a dear colleague letter in march of 2011, but how about how the state can come and compliance? you have extended the deadline twice, can you identify which states still need to come to compliance about what notice has been give to that? >> i don't have that information. i would be happy to get to right away. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i noted the charts that the secretary brought today, and i simply must make a couple of comments about them. you know, i don't know who it was who said they are lives and statistics. [laughter] having dealt with that all my life, i was curious on this high quality preschool issue that

it's given to us as a percentage of gdp, and that number one is denmark, which has 5 million people in 2011. they spend $10,429. iceland is number two. the population is 319,000, and they spent $974 per student. we and -- and number three is the russian federation. i'm not sure that we want to compare the united states of america to these other places. especially the russian federation. i would like to point out that the united states spent more per student than any of the places highlighted. we spent $10,959.

if you want to look as a percentage of dd ged. we are not comparing apples and apples. we are comparing apples an tangerines, i guess. i'm not sure if you look at iceland and denmark in compare comparison to us in terms of numbers with 320 million people. >> let me be clear, children in europe are aren't competing in jobs if your district or state. they are competing with jobs with children in singapore and south korea and india and china and russia and iceland. we want our children to be able to compete for the high wage high skill jobs or keep the companies in the country or my grate to where the most skilled are. that's the choice we have. >>. >> the yes lady's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary duncan, it's always a

pleasure to have you testify before this committee. thank you for your outstanding leadership and piers veerntion for joining us on this education work force committee, as i said. i am pleased that president obama proposed 2014 budget makes strategic investment in early learning and also in k-12 and higher education. i have been a strong champion for education k through 20. i have a daughter, the second out of work girls -- specialized in early learning preschool education for prekinder programs, three and 4-year-olds. she was outstanding childrenner in that category in about 38 school districts and oftentimes

reads what we're doing in congress and makes the comment that not enough children are being given that opportunity with three and 4-year-olds. and certainly one of the charges that is in the terrible you gave us -- material you gave us high-quality preschool. the u.s. ranks 25th in public funding for early learning out of 26 countries certainly is in line with what she is telling me going on in texas. so let me say, secretary duncan, if in your testimony you highlight the graduation rate for latino student has improved from 2008 to 2011 with an additional 164,000 latino students graduating on time. and i understand that high school graduation rates were african-american students also improved so that today two and three african-american students are graduating on time and to me that is progress.

so i aggravated assault -- graduate you. i'm glad to see we are making this process in the achievement gabs for the students looking at the chart that shows the number of students that drop out factories in 2008, to a quarter million dropped down considerably in 2011. and the number of those school districts known as dropout factories dropped to 1,400 in 2011 showing great progress. so i want to ask you, mr. secretary, looking at the republican's party's paul ryan proposed budget would most likely result in significant cuts to federal education programs i'm talking about. the question is what impact is it having on the disadvantaged

children and youth, and can you discuss the effects of this ryan budget on president obama's college completion goals? >> let me -- i just want to go back while we are pleased to have 700,000 fewer children enroled in dropout factory. we have 1.5 million people in dropout factories. it's not, you know, mission accomplished. we're not there yet. we have to get better faster. we can't get the rate down zero fast enough. we have a lot of hard work ahead of us. we need to invest, we need to not invest in the status quo -- any time you have a budget we see 2.1 billion taken from children. 28 million take away impact aid. children from military families, native american reservation, we talk about $2 billion cut in ida programs. $4 billion cut in pell grant.

we're trying to get more young people to college not less. it's devastating. we cut off our nose inspite our face. let me be clear our international competitors, japan, india, china, singapore they're not managing the education strategy by a sequester. that is not how they're doing this. they are investing, they are innovating, they are putting more money in. south korea is inveesing the investment other the past decade by a third. they know what it takes to get good jobs to come to a country and stay. i worry we are poorly serving our nation's children and our nation's economy. f we fail to invest. and fail to give our children an opportunity to compete in a global marketplace. the world is fundamentally changed and we keep acting like we're in a era that has been gone for thirty, forty, fifty years. >> secretary, i would like to hear your view on hr1911. the bill that would make college more expensive and out of reach.

in particular how does the proposal affect students of color? >> again, i think and i hope, maybe i'm wrong. i hope that we can agree that our goal should be to lead the world in college graduation rates. it's the right thing for young people, our economy's economy, and the country. i talked early in my testimony about the return on investment being about 15.2% a year. that's a huge investment. they are undisputable. anything that makes college less assessable, less affordable, more distant for first generation college goers, we do ourselves a great disservice. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. secretary for being here. before i start, i have a special guest today. christina from tennessee who is a my shadow. would you stand up and be recognized? thank you for being here.

i also want to -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> mr. secretary. i hear your for education the week before the election i got tired of talking to adults and i went to seven school and talked to young people. elementary up to middle school. it's the future of the country. i agree with what most of colleagues on both sides of the aisle said. i want to -- a year ago we were in -- [inaudible] we went to the department of education, and schools there 700,000 of them don't have electricity. there's a when you compare that i think most people company comprehend you have a school without power. those were the fake -- facts. we were there a year ago.

i want to go to early childhood. it sounds intuitive. if you spend more money there you will ultimately down the road get a better outcome. what studies are you citing? i look at this very fill gently. >> there are many things. with can get you a series of studies. what i cited here is the preschool project that was studied for study for more than four decade and approaching the fifth. >> let's go -- [inaudible] that study those two that are closing that the president quoted rests on 0 two academic studies, i may be pronouncing it wrong. [inaudible conversations] >> yeah. these are four and five decade studies. these studies actually started in 1972 and with 111 infants in north carolina, the perry project started in 1962 with 123 children and their families in michigan, what it showed was

mentioned the $7. the study cost between $16 and $41 ,000 per dmield current dollars, and also the money was spent on intensive interventions, home visit, parent counseling, nutrition, health care, it was incredibly complicated, and that's what we're basing this on. the two decades' old studies that are about 150 people total. >> those are important studies. they are by no means the only ones. we will get you data. recent short term studies in tulsa, oklahoma which has done a great job had a gains in literacy and four months in math schools. very recent study coming out of boston. preschool lead to seven months gains and basic cognitive schools. >> i'll get those. i want to tell you peel the onion back pretty far and look

at the head start. >> quickly. interesting study coming out of tennessee. i want to make sure you're aware of those. >> i'm aware of those. in december of last year, the hhs released a comprehensive head start data which took 346 pages of study and said several states in the -- some got in some not. there were no measurable groups between -- it was no better than a random how do you explain it? >> it looked at children who had access to head start not who actually attended head start. 20% of the children in the study didn't attend. so it's very important we have -- . >> you county -- it wouldn't matter. >> no, again you had children who were in that study who were part of the head start cohort 20% of whom didn't attend. have to sit down with you and

walk through, you know, the facts and important it be high quality. >> and just the same as the group that did whether they dropped out or not. >> no. again. the -- [inaudible] >> we can discussion discuss that. i want to work -- i'm committed to this is the number of dropouts. i think that's a travesty in the country. we should concentrate on the 1400 scoolt were those children are being failed today. secondly want i want to work on the pell grant program where we invest the money more wisely. i would be look at the higher number if we knew the outcome. get it to the students who are effectively using it. there's a lot of my community colleges i talk to they see the kids get the grant, drop out and it's lost and wasted. i want to see that given to the kids who are successful. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, again, secretary

duncan. i want to go back on in september of 2011, the department offered states the opportunity to waive the requirement of the dividing supplement tal education service to students. despite assurances, the posed in the home senate of new york it will not slug off responsibilities to the -- [inaudible] to students and give district the opportunity to offer it. i'm concerned with the post waiver realityies. could you -- i know you have a lot of data. could you tell me what the criteria of the department is using to evaluate stake compliance with the commitment to ensure critical services that are being delivered to the students? >> yeah. again, at the end of the day while we have approved 37 state plan. plans are important. i want to look at outcomes for children. are the achievement gaps close. are children disadvantaged

proving or not? and so that's plans on paper tell you something, what is more important is happening to real students. let me tell you why we did it. one of the things i really resented about washington quite frankly, when i left the chicago public schools despite the funding coming from washington. tied my hands how i could spend the money. i wanted to be held accountable for results i want the flexibility to spend the money as i saw fit. i almost had to sue my current department of the education in chicago for the right to tutor about 25,000 children after school in my department of education of telling me in chicago i couldn't do that. that was crazy. it's baffling. and so with limited dollars, with education being underfunded, we thought it was important not dictate to districts and superintendents and school boards you have to use 20% of the title i money around it. and hold you accountable for results. the good providers use them.

have them grow. do something yourself. to say you have to spend money in the way that prialses are fixed simply didn't make sense. again, my fundamental thinking about this hold people accountable to high bar. be tight on bars and loose on means. i don't mind the flexible. what i mind is making sure that the students are getting the programs that they want. how do we know that the states are doing that? >> again, we will monitor their plans. be clear, beyond monitoring plans we have ongoing checks here and renewal process. i want to look at student improvement. >> have you seen any information coming in since 2011. >> yeah. it was very early. after graduation rates up. dropout fact i are rates are down. it's early data. we need to look state by state and who is moving the needle faster. create a little healthy

competition with there. >> i agree with that. i'm looking at the dropout which is one of the biggest factors for many of us care about. once we get the kids that drop out very rarely do they ever come back to the system. >> yeah. >> and those are the kids that unfortunately sometimes end up in prison. so those are the factors that i have that we have the opportunity to reach these kids. >> yeah. >> and we have an opportunity to change their lives around. >> yeah. >> and i just want to make sure that the states and the local districts, flexibility are using it especiallily the schools. that's who we are targeting. >> one other added point on the -- i think again, all of us have to be get the dropout rate down to zero. a lot of students leave high school because it's not too hard. it's too easy. it's boring for thing. it's a $300 million request to redesign high schools to focus on college and career and hands on engaged learning and

relevance to the work force. i've been in a couple of high high schools including one in new york who did amazing job. for far too many kids that's a huge divide. we want to invest in states and district that are serious about helping students understand what i'm learning in class is vaunt to the -- relevant to the jobs in my community. >> we have one in long island. the college material this is not what they choose. so they -- a lot go on to college. i think that's important. not every student wants to go to college. >> and to be clear, i think what other countries do, which i don't like, some countries trap student track. it's either or to your point. let them figure out what they want to do with their lives. we need to give them options not limit the opportunities. >> thank you.

i yield back. >> thank you. mr. wall wahlberg. >> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary for being here. last week i had the opportunity to meet with more than a dozen college and university presidents from my district and surrounding districts. to discuss primarily the issue of high cost of tuition. high cost of higher education and ultimately the cost of students with discussed here numerous times. the cost of loan debt. we know that the department of education requires these colleges and universities to collect a great deal of information. and report that information to the democrat. that of reporting according to them continues to grow. and so i would ask,

mr. secretary, since the it ultimately comes back to the student for all that goes on education including excessive reporting. it that be the case. has anyone your department looked at the financial impact all of the recordkeeping and what it's costing not only the universities and colleges but the students? >> that's a great question. we look at that closely. i would encourage you, i do it all the time. i meet with college presidents where we have regulations that are redundant. please let me know directly those are the kinds of things i don't want to don't impose on folks. it's helpful. where there's unneeded burden there hold me accountable for challenging that. so dollars are scarce. we don't want to waste time or resources. we want them focused on completion rates and not on paper work. it doesn't make sense.

>> i appreciate that offer. ly share that, certainly. if you have any illustrations what you are doing right now? >> we do a series of things. often i ask the question, i don't get back concrete specific do. the more specific you can be, you know, this piece of data or this whatever we're asking three time or doing it in a wrong way. the more concrete you can be it would be helpful. a bigger issue is a idea of college costs. and frankly, we can reduce paperwork. that's not driver of college costs there. we have don a lot of facet of communication to make it easier for folks to apply for financial aid. part of the president's proposal is a race to the top for higher education that incentivize three things. states to continue to invest, shared responsibility, incentivize universities to keep down the costs. some are doing it well. others aren't. incentivize them to build culture around completion. the goal can't be go to

college. it has to help them graduate. we want to be a partner. that's what we're proposing to congress. >> let me go on to the panel. i mentioned fasfa and the programs and help students with tuition costs. i recently heard from several financial aid. they are concerned about fraud in the pell grant program. it's not new to you. either people are enrolling in community colleges to get access to student aid dollars with no intelligence -- intention of ever trying to complete an academic program or fraudulently enrolling to take money and run. can you point to some specific actions that the administration has done to clamp down open fraud and the pell grant programs. >> fraud rings are a real concern. it's real money out there. so i have a list of ten i won't read them to you. in october of 2011 we issued a

dear colleague letter to the school community addressing the findings that came from the oig. we established an antifraud ring task force chaired by jess baker to address the issues created in the report. we created a mailbox and call line with folks there. we are developing a process for schools to review and flag unusual enrollment activities. i can go through a series of things. we take it seriously. there are additional ideas or actions we should be taken. >> is there any move to tie fasfa reporting to the irs records? the tax records so that we don't have redundancies when we have mistakes in unintentional or intentional fraud -- yeah. >> the irs can prepopulate them. that's a piece that goes beyond that. >> i hope we would goat ways that we could really reduce the

subjectivity of reporting. and make sure that students, parent and otherwise know that what they give is accurate information. >> so we'll share with you and your star what we are doing. if you have suggestions ways question do it better. i would be happy to hear. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. secretary for being here. i have some prek initiative questions. very, very happy to see that in the budget. i don't know how many times we have to go over it study after study, but the sooner you get the babies ready, the better they're going do and the outcomes are going to be better. and i appreciate the president and yours initiative on that. per your question, just for my clarification maybe you can answer now, certainly provide the committee information on it. the regulatory question around gainful employment looking at

that outcome is it possible to provide the committee, as i understand it was inclusive, but there was a section that dealt -- the reaction i received and many received for the for profit colleges relative to that regulation? >> what is the percentage of federal funds that go in to for-profit versus the student enrollment versus the outcome? because i believe that was not today certainly that information would be important for the committee because the come keeps coming up. >> yeah. i don't have the exact numbers. the percent of money over time has gone up significantly to the for profit. let me be clear i'm not antifor profit. where for-profit are helping young people or 58-year-olds gain skill to get them real jobs and living wage. we want to see them grow and prosper. we are for-profit are the folks

are putting anemia a worse financial situation than when they started and using taxpayer money to do that. we think it's a poor use of taxpayer resource. >> i agree. if it's a mandatory -- the tax dollar the waste there of is certainly that information would be important to the committee. what happens with head start, mr. secretary? was the pre-k initiative is fully implemented given the cuts that are coming and given the recompetition which i thought was necessary and proper in some of the instances the agencies weren't working well . >> we have a great partnership with kathleen inteel yous. to be clear it's a zero to five initiative. it's a goal end achievement gaps and stop playing catchup and stopped a miring the problem. over time hhs would focus on

zero to three space. more home visiting and working with the struggling parents and focus on head start and early head start. over time the transition of 4-year-old would be to the prek program. it's zero to five. the goal again i have to reintegrate the average child coming from a disadvantaged background starts at cinder kindergarten at 5 years old 12 to 14 month behind. that's been true for far too long. the goal is to level the playing field. have young children start with the same starting line as 5-year-old in cinderrer garden. if i can add one more thing. it's important to follow research. part of the benefits are academic clearly, you know, language and literacy and math skills. but a big part of the benefits that the the long-term study are showing the noncognitive skill. the a ability to sit in the room like this and participate. the ability to have resilience

and gritted and and they play huge dividend. you couldn't be as dispefl you didn't have them. not everybody grows up that the kinds of stunt. it's the economic dividend benefit plus the noncog size that seems to have a lifetime huge impact on people's ability to enter the middle class and be successful. >> two quick questions. in the prek. initiative the english learner component is -- i -- i read it quickly. i don't know is it that included in the initiative? we make sure that our families and kids are going to be able to --. >> absolutely. kids that are low-income and work their way up. where states want to do more in the middle income family have the right to do that. states are doing a lot in the pre-k face -- space they can do

full-day cirnt garden. build upon their strength and . >> related one of the first hits in term of sequestration was an indian country in a particular education on the -- [inaudible] in those nations. as you see that question, and reflection in the president's tbowjt address -- budget to address -- . >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's good to see you again, appreciate the time to be here. a quick observation on the increase of graduation rates and going back to what dr. fox said earlier about the stakes. i think it's arch the average rate of 78%. you mentioned the track to hit 90%. i think we have to be careful about using average.

the top five largest school district the average of those five come out to 69%. maybe we use the median or something circht to make sure we are tracking all school district. the issue important to me is the karl d. perkins is technical education. i've been a strong supporter. this is my days in the state house and maintain the philosophy that high school seniors should be college and career ready when they graduate. we talk a lot about access and affordability of college. not everyone is known go to college. those who choose to forego college to enter the work force directly after high school need options and necessary training. i appreciation the administration's proposal to authorize it. i have concern with the proposal that designate $100 million to create new ct funding. it's based on demographic. because it's discretionary funding, there can be fluctuates from year to year. the harmless provision was nut

place in 1998 to prevent states receiving less than they were allocated in '98. and i obviously was established being affected. states like my home state had a significant population growth since 1998. if we use the 1998 provision combination with the diversion puts them at the significant disadvantage can that result in a funding reduction of 42%. with that in mind, if the department of education take the potentially devastating cuts to states like nevada, which would receive a 42% cut in to account. should it go in to effect? does the department have a proposal to revise the funding formula education to provide for a -- [inaudible] >> i'm happy to work through the specific issues with you and the governor. we put out a blueprint of reauthorization.

i don't know the details about in. i'm more than happy to look at it. the point we are trying to make i think we did better whether you call it -- cte honestly as a country we did it better twenty or thirty or forty years ago and have gotten away from it. we want to see a norm behalf high schools are offering. we want to spur innovation and creativity. some places are doing it. other place it is doesn't exist. some high schools are training students for jobs that disappeared a couple of decades ago. we want to find ways to increase the access to the programs. at the high school and having programs in the middle school. that's the goal. happy to talk to my details with you and your team. >> i appreciate your effort to work together states like arizona, florida. based on the harmless from 1998 as we move forward. i appreciate your help in trying to avoid that. >> happy to look at it. thank you. >> gentleman yields back.

mr. bishop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. thank you for your leadership. i'm worried about the federal -- i think sequestration is had, as you know, a significant impact on programs like, you know, college work study and scog. a 22% cut in appropriations will do even further damage to those programs. i'm particular worried about perkins. as you know, current law has the perkins loan fund returning to the treasury october 1st, 2015. that means we have two more academic years left of a program we had since i think 1958. the department has made a proposal or the department made a proposal a couple of years now to dpramatically expand perkins. turn it to campus base direct

lending. help significant number additional suit. i don't think the program has much of a chance in this congress and in fact i think probably the acting commissioners of the irs has a better shot of being named government man of the year than -- than we have getting the program through. so i guess my question is what does the department have a plan b.? i would that's a billion worth a student financial aid that could disappear overnight unless we're able to either keep the program as currently exists, or extend in some form or fashion. obviously the long history announcement expert in the area. to further the conversation beyond today but sort of stepping back. the big picture we have a huge challenge of keeping college affordable and not just disadvantaged community and middle class. whether i go to the grocery store or fly an airplane. everywhere i go people tell me

the cost of college is crushing them. as a country do we want to have the best educate or continue to be twelve, fourteen, or six teen? looking at all of these thing and figure how we name more afortble has to be our collective goal. our proposal on the table is a race to the top for higher education. played significantly in early childhood face. i think we had dramatic impact on k through 12. haven't played at higher ed. we can't coit by ourself. we have to share responsibility. if we can get state to invest and reinvest. forty states cut funding for higher education. 80% of the country there's no upside there. not enough universities are using technology to reduce costs and increase, you know, graduation rates and pass rates. we want to try to put some significant things to incentivize behavior. i want to get your insight on the better idea you have. the debt burden is

starringerring. the cost is factor too high. none is good for young people or the families or country. >> thank you. i would be delighted to work with you and the colleague and the department. i guess i want to emphasize the importance of the campus base financial aid program. as someone who used to more the programs they are often the difference between whether a student enters or doesn't enter. and most often a difference that make the difference between whether a student stays. >> whether or not they stay or leave. >> absolutely. second question, quickly. you talk about a culture of completion, again, full agreement. and there's a lot of pieces to that. well, one piece that i would hope we could resurrect is cooperative education. cooperative education is, as you know we talk abouted this. this is something i think one of the best things colleges can do for students. it also is correlates very positively with completion we

want a culture of completion and want students to enter a job that isn't as hospitable cooperative education can be a part ofsha solution. i would hope we can move forward resurrecting the federal role in cooperative education. >> thank you. please push us to think about that and other thoughts and idea you have on the topic. again, i think it's an issue of national security and economic competitive. we need to be bold, thoughtful, and work together. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary duncan, the proposed budget contains new costly programs to address -- including a billion for the race for the top. prevent the exper ration perkins loan. what is the department doing remove existing regulatory barriers that prevent colleges from sharing innovative

practices and -- billions more on tested programs. more specifically i know you're aware your department implemented new ib -- incentive. you eliminate the so-called safe harbor that put in place over multiple administration. in response to the democrat side of the aisle the department maintain one of the safe harbors by permitting revenue sharing between college and third party to innovate the shared expertise. instead of applying the regulation fairly. they prohibited any entity of higher education from participating in this marnght. i had a letter sent to you saying that you were looking to fix this unfair ruling and negotiated rulemaking process. however, it's not on the agenda as used to be addressed and the federal register notice states the process will take years. will is bipartisan to fix the

problem immediately. to expand innovations, reduce cost for student. something you say you care about. simple straightforward legislative language has been drafted to keep in place. would you commit to support this legislation? >> i will work with constructively. >> i'm happy to look at that. if there is bipartisan for anything these days. we have to look at it seriously. >> one final question dealing with common core stance. i have always been kind of a states right guy. i believe the top quality of education really is effective at the state level and more specifically by the local school district. i don't see in the constitution that really deals with education. i think conversely the tenth amendment gives the states my share of the responsibility if not all the share of the responsibility for education al the general education provisions

act prohibits the federal government for. act esea prohints the establishment of the national curriculum. i have a lot constituents on the education front that are concerned about they see it as a bribe to the state. and a bait and switch. it's a promise of money that if the states go wrong with the federal curriculum. they get the money. many states have taken the bait. a lot of students and parents are not happy with this. what are we doing to make sure that we maintain local control of curriculum? >> well, sir, facts matter. as a matter of fact, we're prohibited by law from touching curriculum. never had. never will. no intent. it's not a black helicopter. we're not trying to get inside people's minds and brains which i've been reading about. let me be clear, what many

states on a voluntary basis have done including your state is raise standards. we want our children competing to high standards ncially benchmark. they're not at the disadvantage in children in china, singapore. how do you teach to those higher standards? the curriculum is controlled -- [inaudible] always has been always will be. you never heard me once in four whatever years talk about that. solet not get caught in the history tiara or the drama. look at the facts. if arizona wants to raise their standards tomorrow. arizona wants to lower the standards. you the right to do that. i would encourage you not to . >> thank you secretary duncan. >> a straightforward question. it you answered it. i appreciate it. you said that the federal government has no intention of getting involved in directing what the states do for curriculum. i appreciate it. i yield back the balance of my time. >> to be clear we are prohibited

by law from doing that. >> gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman i too have a guest with me. jenny from dayton, ohio who is one 6 our foster -- of foster care advocate. thank you for being here. thank you, mr. secretary for. thank you for your focus on children. which sometimes i think gets lost. before i begin, i want to make a comment about the smart solutions they talked about earlier. let me say for the record say if it's not smart it's a solution. all it is is a another vote that is going try to balance the budget or make cuts on the back of those who can least afford it. for those who are concerned about idea, i know that i don't think a colleague on the other side that would have voted for the stimulus. even though it's not enough, there were significant resources in the stimulus bill for idea.

[inaudible conversations] >> a large increase, i think in the history has to be in the history of idea. ..