itself could fix. three of the top 10 were things that the department by itself could fix. now, these aren't things that secretary duncan and president obama by themselves did, secretary alexander and president bush did some of them. this is going all the way back to 1965. what they found was, that for example vanderbilt university hired the boston consulting group, to tell it how much it cost vanderbilt it's nonhospital part of vanderbilt how much federal regulations cost vanderbilt in one year. it's $150 million. that's 11,000 on every student's tuition, 11% of all their money. it's just a jungle of red tape. national academy of sciences has said that an administrator's time on investigations is 42% administrative time. that's billions of more dollars of wasted money, now, most of

that is not department of education, it's other departments and the government. this is a widely recognized problem that we have, that we've all contributed to including us in congress, those of us who have been in government. so here's my question, would you be willing -- an example, let me give an example for example when students withdraw from college a portion of their title 4 funds has to be returned to the federal government. regulatory techs are figuring out what that is, over 200 pages in a handbook. that's one of the number one objections they have. that could be easily fixed with financial responsibility standards, there's a requirement for audited financial statements for private nonprove it and for profit colleges that causes them to get expensive letters of credit according to this report. these requirements by the department don't cause -- don't follow accepted accounting principles, another one is that

when the fapsa, the application for federal grant or loan which is 108 questions is applied, there's a process that's very time-consuming. we recommended cutting these 108 questions to two. president obama and his budget has endorsed this idea and said he's found 30 or 40 questions. if we simplify this form if we move which would require legislation, the data from -- to the junior year in high school instead of the senior year, these are all very common sense nonideological issues. my question is, would you be willing to sit down with chancellor kerr and chancellor zeppos who led this study and listen to them and their recommendations about what you and the department could do to implement the dozen of the 59 that the department by itself could do? and would you be willing to work with senator mccull ski and me and bennett and burr and senator murray to try to implement this

simplification of what the report called a jungle of red tape? >> we think there's really good stuff. our staff has looked at it closely, we have not met with them yet. if you want to help facilitate that, that would be fantastic. whatever we can do to remove red tape, we should absolutely do that. there are a couple that our staff had looked at already, those recommendations who think we could move potentially quickly on. we're starting internally to get behind this, and bigger picture if we can get to a good spot on esea. on hea reauthorization, will be like a walk in the park in relative terms. >> there's a lot offer if tile ground here. >> we're ready for a walk in the park after no child left behind. seriously, we look forward to that, thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> i want to talk about college education making it more

affordable. i want to talk specifically about finishing on time for undergraduates. the university of hawaii has worked very hard with their p through 20 initiative and with the department, but to try to enable kids to finish. it's not just the annual cost of college, but it's how quickly as a practical matter kids are able to finish, some of that has to do with the counciling they get in their freshman year, some of it has to do with the availability of the courses that they need i'd like to you talk about that, we tend to focus on the interest rate in the congress, and we tend to focus on the pell grant level and sometimes we talk about the retail price none of that matters if it takes you 5 or 6 years to finish. >> i want to say, we've seen a huge amount of innovation and great work coming out of hawaii, you should be so proud. that was a state we invested early on. lots of folks thought that was a huge mistake on our own part it's been amazing to see both

the k to 12 side and early childhood what your state is doing, i just want to thank the folks for their courage and doing things differently, and you guys and some pretty profound ways getting much better results than many places and improving faster than many other states. we love what we're seeing there whatever we can do to increase speed to a degree, reduce the time, that's the whole point of the first in the world competition, looking at the competency base, looking at better sport as you said there's so much good work going on around the nation where we can -- as i said before, we can scale what is working. we think that's a hugely important role to play, whether it's first time/full time or whether it's a 29-year-old single mom with two children trying to go back to school to climb the economic ladder, whatever we can do to get more people into college, more importantly, get them that degree at the end and give them a position to get a better paying job we have to do that

that's why programs like first in the world are so critically important, there's so much greater demand. we would like to be investing lots many more institutions of higher education who are taking very seriously their role, not just to enrole students, but to help them graduate and graduate as swiftly as possible. >> i appreciate your work in the area coming down on some of the bad ashlgters among online degree granting institutions i'm wondering whether we can come at some of those challenges from the accreditation side. because as the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned. they get their accreditation and then we move on and try to clean up after its all done, i'm wondering whether you have the authority under the statute to kind of come after some of these bad actors with men is school graduation rates with bad outcomes on every level, i wonder why they're accredited in the first place. >> that's a fair question in

some of these situations. the accreditation process we're looking at closely to see what we can do to challenge folks and to raise the bar. so happy to continue the conversation offline with you and your staff we have a team that's looking at that piece of the puzzle very intently. >> in hawaii, we're doing some work among native kwai wian educators. they've played a role in advancing the native language. mainstream english based standards often undermine natives to use their languages in schooling. i'm wondering what you can do at the department to support access to and fair assessment through the medium of native languages. >> i'm sure you know, we recently gave a waiver granted a waiver request to pilot the development and administration

of new assessments in native languages, what's happening there, has relevancy in many other states around the nation so really appreciate the leadership and thoughtfulness there. please challenge us and hold us accountable for being a good partner, we'll see what develops there has implications in many other places. so we're very interested and supportive of that work. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary. thank you for the call yesterday. >> as i mentioned my interest is dyslexia. what specific program ss does the department fund for dyslexia. >> i don't think we have a specific program for dyslexia. children with dyslexia fall into special needs. >> can i interrupt for a second? >> absolutely. >> dyslexia is 80% of learning disabilities. so it may be 50, maybe more of those who cannot read.

it strikes me, if it's 20% of the kids that have a problem. 80% of those with learning disabilities. 20% of the general population, why don't you have a special program for dyslexia. >> fair question again. that's something for congress to think about. >> you're suggesting congress should give a special emphasis? >> i'm not suggesting i'm saying congress can look at this, and there are many children with special needs, and we are trying to ask some more resources and obviously a significant portion of those resources go to help children with dyslexia. >> do you have any sense of the quality of the programs currently in schools addressing the needs of dyslexia? >> i think it would be varied and mixed. i think there are some schools, some districts who do an extraordinary job here -- >> grarnted, there's always going to be a spectrum, but do we have a sense of where the mean is? not the mean, the median? >> yeah.

>> i would say much better than 10 or 15 years ago, much greater, height awareness. >> that's a low bar, man. >> that's -- that may be true but is it more -- we can and should be doing? absolutely. >> so what would you -- in your dream of dreams what would be done to actually improve the screening and intervention for those with dyslexia many if you tell me there's no single office looking at it there's no kind of -- senator mccull ski speaks about the 1% i'm speaking about the 20% she speaks about those who may succeed -- i'm speaking about the 20% that will not succeed. now, i just have a sense that this has been on kind of -- may happen, may not. there's not really been that sort of supervision to make sure -- not like you're doing for the for profit colleges. you know there's a problem, you're going to go in and look at it. i have a sense, maybe it happens, maybe it does.

>> our office is doing really good work there. again, it's a fair critique are we -- do we have enough resources put behind children, whether they have special needs or are extraordinarily gifted. i think it's a fair critique that we're not investing enough in either population, and for us to invest more we clearly need your help and support. >> that said i think it's more than -- i would argue it's more than an investment. i think there's a lack of awareness, i read about rti and others that think we should screen differently. those that criticize and praise rti say there must be a general faculty understanding of what dyslexia is, or otherwise the child gets to the fourth grade and cannot read and at that point intervention is less profitable. is there any sense that there's a general faculty understanding and more than a small fraction of schools? >> so these are complicated issues and don't want to blow through them and really important issues. we have about 1400 schools of

education, if you wanted to have a general or a universal faculty understanding. once they entered a classroom, that's a little late in the game. that should happen well before that, and so i think to really get to the root of that, the honest question would be, what are our schools of education doing in this space. >> i got that on the other hand, if we say, wait until those who are currently in school become aware of the issue, then we're really speaking about 30 years from now before we replace all those who are currently active and would no longer be. >> i say that as a kind of oh, my gosh, we need a co hort, not just a current co hurt but all cohorts to be engaged. that kind of answers my question. i have a sense that most educators are not aware of this and have not received training dollars to be made aware of it. it is like, we met the enemy and it is us. >> yes and we invest in professional development. we would like to invest more.

and i also argue publicly in many places at the money we put behind, not future teachers. is often well spent. sorry, is often poorly spent and not spent on things that teachers are really looking for. >> it's reasonable that congress would give some direction if we see a need that would address part of the population that we would give specific direction it shouldn't be here's a pile of money, spin it anyway you wish. we have a specific national need please address. i don't know your thoughts on that. >> there are many children with special needs, many children facing real challenges, and for me, it's not about picking out this population, that population, it's about how we get every single one of those children -- >> i accept that but in times of limited resources, you have to be somewhat directed. it seems more likely you would focus? >> many of your colleagues are looking for us to be less

directive. i want to be clear about that. >> i yield back, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. secretary, thank you for your leadership and putting forth the budget that supports investments in the learning continuum from early childhood to career. i want to start by focusing in on one stage in that continuum and that's high school, while acknowledging that every stage of that education continuum is vitally important. your fiscal 16 budget calls for a $125 million investment in our high schools. to ensure that these schools can redesign to meet students needs. i'm concerned that too many high schools are failing to help their students make it even to graduation. and even those who do graduate may not be armed with the skills they need to enter a post secondary education. training or the workforce.

>> in my state of wisconsin there are 13 high schools that fail to graduate a third of their students. earlier this year i introduced the next generation of high schools act to allow high schools to redesign and innovate to better meet student needs. and increase rigor in course work particularly in the workhorse critical areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics the stem fields and a career in technical education. can you speak to the need to focus on and invest in our high schools specifically and the necessity to have a dedicated program like the bill i described the next generation of high schools act that supports students and prevents dropouts. >> i want to thank you for your leadership and passion on this.

let me take a step back. when you have high schools anywhere in the nation where two thirds of students do not graduate those are dropout factors. we have to take that on, we have to challenge the status quo, we have to do some things very differently "visited many high schools that were dropout factories and they've turned around. none of them are perfect yet. this is an ongoing process. we've seen remarkable changes. met with a young man here last week, who was from a high school in miami that was a dropout factory, and have totally changed the culture now. same children, same families, same building, same challenges same neighborhood but radically different results. i would like to follow up with you very directly. those 13 high schools, that's unacceptable, we need to look at that significantly. we put resources you know, behind school improvement grants. we've seen many schools turn

around. we have a ways to go. and to state the obvious, when young people drop out of high school teed, there are no good jobs. none for them. we can't passively stand on the sidelines, your leadership is so important. many young people drop out of high school not because it's too hard, but because it's too easy, and they're bored. they don't see the relevance. the more we are redesigning high schools and helping young people understand what they're learning in class, what the tie is to the reeling world and real jobs. when they're engaged, excited about am coulding to school you see the dropout rates go down precipitously. again i'm so proud that high school graduation rates are all-time highs, our drop outrate is still unacceptably high for the nation, and when you have high schools like that, it is untenable for us to stand on the sidelines and see that continue to happen. no easy answers but we should look carefully at those 13 cools and what's going on in the community.

we have to do something better and your leadership to get more resources, have their work there, be morell vant to the real world. it's absolutely the right thing to do. >> i'm definitely going to take you up on continuing to work together to advance these proposals and see them reflected across the country. i have just a couple minutes left -- or a couple seconds left actually, so i know we're not going to get into this fully but i wanted to hear a little bit more about the community college program. i actually offered an amendment during our budget resolution markup to put this into action. but i -- right now and perhaps in follow-up to this hearing, i want to hear more about the department's vision for the american's college promise. how it will ultimately save students and taxpayers dollars.

and sort of how you envision this proposal supporting the vital contribution of technical colleges and tribal colleges. >> i know we're trying to be very quick, is that okay? >> go ahead and do a quick answer. there will be a second time, and the 11:00 vote has now been eliminated. so there will be no 11:00 vote. >> do you want me to wait? >> we'll have a second round. just in case senator baldwin has to leave. go ahead. >> very quickly i'm just a huge fan as is the president in our nation's community colleges. some i've been to some of the most inspiring businesses. you see 15-year-olds, 38-year-olds, 58-year-olds. people retraining and retooling. in the united nations, you have people from all over the world coming to learn and get better. green energy jobs advanced manufacturing and health care. this is the path the route to promote the middle class, and the jobs of tomorrow not the jobs of yesterday. the idea of making these

community colleges free and giving what is young people or middle aged people the chance to get the skills they need to be productive citizens we think makes all the sense in the world this this is coming from senator alexander, from tennessee this is done to scale. it's very early. the outpouring of interest has stunned them far beyond what they anticipated opinion this is an absolutely investment, not an expense. tribal colleges and universities would be a part of this. tribal colleges do around amazing job as you know on shoestring budgets. whatever we can do to strengthen community colleges, provide more people access and what too many folks in rooms like this don't understand, is that often while relatively speaking, they are cheaper today. just the cost of child care or transportation or gas or buying books can literally stop somebody from taking that step. and we just want to eliminate

those financial barriers and give hardworking folks a chance to get the skills they need to climb the economic ladder. >> senator thank you. quite a few questions, let me try to go through several of them. one is you and i have spoken before about the waiver and no child left behind. it is the importance to replace no child left behind my state of oklahoma has dealt with this extensively, with your department, but every state has had to deal with the waiver process, and i appreciate your cooperation in trying to get a complete replacement of this, and so you do not have to deal with the constant waiver battles back and forth. also i appreciate some of the comments that senator alexander made for any person who has a junior or senior in high school, and they get that form. the very first question is why are they asking all these questions? what does it matter? and why is the federal government collecting this amount of information on my particular student? any work that can be done to

simplify that form is extremely important. for multiple reasons, if we discourage people from engaging in that process by the sheer length of the form, we're doing them a great disservice. i would encourage that. i do want to spend a little more time on what senator blunt was talking about with the college ratings system. just dig into that a little bit as well. in your budget is there a detail of the cost to develop, implement and sustain the college rating program that is currently going through right now, including some sort of estimate of legal costs? obviously this is going to be challenged tremendously, and i would assume your department is aware of that? is there an estimate in your budget somewhere that i'm missing zm. >> let me just back up quickly. i couldn't agree more, we reduced about a third of the questions early on in the administration, clearly we have some more work to do. we feel proud about that. we have average completion times down to under half an hour, we've made some progress but a long way to go.

and look forward to parting with you. >> completion time versus gathering all the forms required to do the completions is quite a big thing. there's quite a bit to gather to pull that together. >> we have some work to do and look forward to doing it. to your point state the obvious, completing that form unlocks $150 billion in grants and loans each year. if you don't fill that form out, you're locked out. that cannot be a barrier, you're exactly right, too many places it is a barrier and impediment. we have to do that. >> just to repeat. on the college ratings system, we're still developing this. >> is that something that's in the budget currently? there's a section there? >> there's not a huge section this is not a high cost item. you know this is us sort of thinking it through. i'm much less worried about it than you are and we can talk flew the concerns or whatever. this would be a modest effort to try to get more information and more transparency.

>> is there a spot where you all are looking at to say, based on previous budget statements coming from this committee saying, we're going to allocate some funds and time and fte's to be able to help prepare a ratings system or. >> on the previous 1979 documents saying, this is within the per view of the department of education to be able to do it? >> i think in -- you know appropriate role of the federal government should be around transparency. and i think this is a massive play around transparency. >> sure. >> which is traditionally been the state responsibility that overseas these state colleges or private industries, they -- >> this is not overseeing they have that -- as you know people aren't just picking colleges in their state and local colleges. if we can gets more information, i can't tell you how many conversations i've had with young people and their parents where they just don't have good information information. >> i understand that, i have high school aged children as

well. i would ask that you submit to the committee any kind of budget work that's already been done to try to build toward this the dollars, fte's that you've set aside to start researching and preparing this ratings system, obviously you've spent some time going through it and then any estimates that you have as you start to guest out the cost of litigation in the future, that would help us in the decision making process in the days ahead, as we start allocating funds. as we're talking about a replacement for no child left behind which i completely encourage and am glad to participate in that process, one of the areas that has come up is that children of -- homeless family families have to be mainstreamed into schools. if they're segregated they are not eligible for any federal funding. so a school that targets helping homeless kids that have a very difficult time engaging in mainstream schools public schools because of their spotty attendance and everything else have no access to those funds.

is that something that we can work together and try to resolve that we have an ability for homeless children to have -- that specific population to at least schools that are targeted toward reaching them aren't excluded? >> it's a great question. i'm not familiar with the school in your state, i'd like to learn more. there's a school in san diego. san diego county i'm more aware of that seems to have done some pretty remarkable work. it's a complicated issue, you never want to stigmatize kids. are there tremendous additional challenges that some schools are doing a great job of helping to meet. i would love to have a further conversation and learn more. i did not know about that. >> there's a tremendous asset to helping those students. if i could ask one more question for the record as well. is that all right? >> the loan servicing issue, has there been some changes on that? we're 25% now of loan servicers will be not for profit. it's capped at that amount? why the 25% number was capped for not for profits, why not

just have the open competition allow those that are quality servicers? i know i'm out of time on that if i could get that submitted for the record, that would be helpful. my hope is it doesn't set the not for profits up for failure. >> just very quickly going-forward. i think september we're looking at performance based upon performance we'll be doing reallocations. >> thank you. >> are you all clear on the question he asked about money being spent on this ratings system? you're going to submit the information in response to that question? money spent, money you anticipate spend something. >> yes. there's no -- this is part of what folks are doing there's no big budget, there's no big whatever, happy to -- >> i just assume as you're thinking it through, you're committing some fte's to it, you have to look out what's going to be the court costs that are possible on this we have to plan on funding, if that's going

to be a funding issue in the days ahead we need to know. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you mr. secretary. it's nice to have you in front of the committee. i want to follow up on the question that the chair was talking about on the gainful employment regulation. you mentioned, i think the purpose of the gainful employment rule in terms of weeding out the bad actors for the for profits, understanding that that occurs and that's a lofty goal, you mention that it wasn't just for the for profit, i want some clarification on that, are you saying that this goes to public institutions or liberal arts schools? community colleges? are they subject to this kind of -- these kind of metrics? they have to report these? how do they compare out, when you look at the for profits that are doing it the right way. >> the gainful employment rule does apply to certificate and nondegree programs at public and

private nonprofit institutions. and so that's -- >> so just taking that further at a public institution if you're getting a four-year degree in social work. and you have a certain amount of debt and obviously that's one of those entry level jobs. it's so important. comes in rather low on the scale. those metrics might not -- you're not getting that? >> no, and again if it doesn't matter whether folks are going to high income jobs or low income jobs, we want that debt to be manageable and them to be in a better spot. >> agreed, and some places, that absolutely happens. and in some places the opposite happens. to be very clear the vast majority of for profits are getting 88 89 90%, sometimes even more of their revenues from you and i, from taxpayers this is a massive public subsidy. if it's leading to better outcomes, i -- that's an honest conversation to have. when it's leading to worse outcomes, we can't support that,

you look at the findings we put out on one of those institutions this year, this week. and again, they have a chance to reply and if we're wrong, we'll say we're wrong what we found was stunning and deeply deeply disturbing. deeply troubling. i want folks on both sides of the aisle to be eyes wide open on this, and to stick taxpayers with this, and leave young disadvantaged folkses in a worse position? that's not what any of us get up to do every single day. >> agroeds. i am going to switch over to student loans. this is something that really bothers me. i have run into numerous students parents and people at institutions and financial -- in the financial aide offices who try to get the metrics of what it actually costs for this -- whatever institution it is. let's say it's $15,000. the students eligible.

and can loan up to $25,000. you're looking at somebody who may want a car, a vacation, has extra needs all these kinds of things. separate from their educational costs. in the end you hear about how the very large of student loans. what can we do about that who can we empower to make sure that we're getting more reasonable decisions. that is just a very troubling statistic, i think it's pretty prevalent. >> it is an issue, we're happy to follow up with you offline. one thing we're trying to do is empower those financial aide counselors to provide clear guidance. >> we worked on a transparency issue. i think that would help. but i see that these sums are astronomical. you look at the costs as calculated. >> that's a piece of the puzzle, these issues are much more complicated than that. looking at this whole ball of wax where student debt is higher than we would like it to be, and

we need to think about all these pieces that contribute to reducing that debt. >> another question i have which is different than that is on early childhood. and i'm a believer in early childhood, the state of west virginia has prek, it's man mandatory for each school to offer, but not the children to attend. i think it's got some pretty decent attendance, if you're looking, and you've said numerous times, if we had the resources, we could do this. if we had the resources we could do that. understanding that's an issue you have head start sitting there, and established program, i've been a supporter of head start, even though it's had some troubled issues. i'm concerned as we move into prek with head start here having its issues and other issues. how are we going to make sure the resources are actually used

efficiently for the right -- directed at the student and the family, and we're not going to end up fighting for the resources for the same child. >> we worked in very close concert with hhs and secretary sebelius. that's -- all my worries, that's not on the list. we have to think about 0 to 5 continuum. if head start was focused more on the 3-year-olds and prek more on the 4-year-olds, there are ways to do this and work together so we're not fighting over kids and resources, making sure there's a continuum of opportunities. >> you have head start, they have facilities in different areas, not necessarily in the school. they have their own buses and i'm not picking on. i want to make sure that we're maximizing we got in it here. >> to be very clear, what we would love to do is have this not developed by us in washington, but at the local levels. >> we're knocking off facilities, whether they're schools or head start facilities or nonprofits or ymca's we have

prek many different places this would be developed at the local level. for me, what's the problem we're trying to solve? the problem we're trying to solve is far too many children and families who want these opportunities, do not have them today because they don't happen to be wealthy. >> one of the reasons we don't want the resources to not reach them is because we're competing. we're hhs over here. >> that's been zero percent of the discussion. we've worked with concert with them on everything. i think again not -- we don't do things perfectly but i think we're frankly modelled, extraordinarily good partnership that didn't happen before. take that one off your worry list. >> i'll take that off my worry list. i'm going to fly one other comment that i think has to be on a list of concerns moving forward because the way education is changing in every aspect but particularly higher ed is all the online, the competitions are online the --

it's been really interesting for me to see the way it grows. and keeping an eye on accountability and other issues and competition i think it's been a real challenge for the future, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and secretary duncan thank you for being here today and for your service. i continue to hear concerns about the department's prioritization of competitive grant funding for programs. and as i'm sure you're aware new hampshire is a small state. it's a relatively -- if we look at all of the states in the country, we have a good school system. we have average relative high income levels. on the other hand we still have pockets, particularly in rural areas where we have real poverty, real challenges with our schools. and so can you talk about how we

can ensure that states like new hampshire -- that may not rank so well on the scale for competitive grants can still get help for programs that we need help on, particularly some of the supports for reading, for elementary school -- the chapter 1 program, others where we have real challenges because the formulas that we have often benefited from are not as robust as they used to be in terms of funding. >> it's important for this committee to know the facts. our budget request 92% of our resources are formula based. the overwhelming majority, 92 cents on every dollar. we are asking for -- we don't see these things as in competition. we see them as absolutely complimentary, we're seen in virtually every place where we

have done competitive work. turning around underperforming schools, whether it's the innovation fund. we've seen significant rural participation. and just one quick example, new hampshire, your state has done some amazing work, thinking about assessments in a different way. you guys lead the nation, and we're partnering very closely, and again maybe a small state, but there's some real assets real strengths to that that's what you guys have done. frankly impossible in a large estate. there are huge assets. and so please hold us accountable for being a good partner in there. we worked very, very hard and the work that your state is doing, i think is very important not just for the children and educators in new hampshire -- if it goes well, that's a big if, very significant national education, we feel good about our ability to partner with big states, small states, rural, whatever. >> i appreciate your nice words

about the work on assessments in new hampshire, i think it is a place where the state has done a great job they are far, far ahead of other folks. a lot of people can learn from you. there's real potential there that i and our team finds pretty exciting. >> i was pleased to see that you have spoken out about first, which is another great program that started in new hampshire, with dean kamen the robotics competition, they're having their national finals, this weekend in saint louis so hopefully we will see new hampshire do well in those finals. but one of the things having been a teacher that i appreciate is that students all students don't learn with a teacher standing in front of the classroom lecturing, the opportunity for hands on education is important. it's one of the things first and

other programs like first do for students. so what is the department thinking about in terms of how to really ensure that every school can have a first team or similar kins of teams where students can do hands on work with mentors get into the stem subjects in a way that often -- sometimes they're not able to do when they're in the classroom? >> first of all i'm a huge fan of dean kamen and what he's created, it's amazing, for folks who haven't seen it, they fill stadiums with students doing extraordinarily exciting work, and all the cheering and all the noise and excitement that you see in athletic contests it's actually much more important and valuable. >> einstein meets michael jordan. >> people who haven't been to one should see one and soak it in. we don't have any direct funding there. would it be great if every middle school in the nation had a robotics team? i think that would be amazing.

i'm a big, big fan. we don't have a direct funding stream for it, they can use resources that we have to go behind it. >> this is not a big ticket item, and the benefits for students i think are amazing. whatever we can do to support and to be a strong cheerleader and advocate, i've been out a couple times. it is amazing to see the impact it's had. >> it is and as we're looking at the esea we're hoping there's some language that we can get in that will support programs not just first, but other programs like that that are hands on. i know that the chair and members are looking at those issues. >> it's a fantastic thing at lots of levels. >> if i can make one final comment. i know that senator langford asked about the servicer loan organizations and that mr. secretary you said that you would be looking at recompeting

contracts in september and looking at the numbers, the volumes that you will allocate. i would just urge you to look at the good job that many of those servicer organizations are doing, we have one in new hampshire that does great work. and i would rather support them as a not for profit than support some of the for profit organizations that are doing that kind of work. >> we do this strictly on performance. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator. >> we'll have a few more questions, i have a couple and maybe more than a couple. i'll ask a couple and go to senator murray and chairman cochran if we have any more. on impact day, mrs. secretary you ask for level funding and impact aide and a budget that basically asks for 6% increases in total. i think we had a vote on this

during the budget voting and overwhelmingly the congress suggested that the goal of these impact aide programs and other programs where we're replacing money that would be there if this were privately owned property should we get that money to a level that is as near as possible approximates what a private taxpayer would pay many it does seem to me that level funding in a. if everything else was level funding i wouldn't be complaining about this. you take the payments and federal property program. which is 67 million. a million of that goes to missouri schools you put that in your own facility's maintenance program. surely you don't expect -- >> i'm happy to have that conversation, so we'll open on this. >> what do you have tom 12 buildings that these facilities would -- facilities money would go to.

>> there are 12 buildings that are owned by the federal government. we would like the federal school districts to take those over. they think the schools haven't had the proper maintenance and upkeep on them. we use the 67 million for the upkeep of the buildings, so that they would be in good shape to be taken over by the local -- >> what do i tell the million, the $925,000 that goes to really in almost all cases almost all districts. what they're doing with that money. you're taking care of 12 federal buildings. >> we're trying to get rid of these buildings to be clear. >> to be clear you zeroed out the payments and federal property program. and moved it to the facilities management program, that's to be clear what you did. >> that's exactly right. the goal is to move these properties from us to local districts. local districts don't want them today. >> another argument for the $67 million. and you might not agree with it,

but it's that the districts lost the property tax base there because of a federal activity. those federal activities aren't ones that have resulted in a lot of kids going to schools, there are parks and things like that, where the property tax base is reduced but they weren't being served. we have support of over a billion dollars for the impact aide program in the areas where they are having an impact on the student enrollment in the district. what we understand is that most of the schools that applied to the property program before 1970, did lose property tax revenue, they can't charge the federal government for the property tax, they're not serving a lot of kids in those areas. you might want to ask them if there's an argument against that, that would help us in developing future budgets. we've repeated this proposal a couple years. >> there are a flub of arguments against that. they have to run the long bus route through that entire area to pick up kids that are in the

middle of the area or on the other side of the area. the fact that if the federal taxpayer wasn't there whether there were kids there or not, somebody would be paying a property tax, i think there are lots of arguments and i'll be surprised if that part of the budget is the way you submitted it. >> happy to have that conversation. >> all right. >> back to this ratings program which i'm glad senator langford asked the questions he did to get information on that. but, you know, a lot of these. i know i have one clipping in front of me here now where the o -- you all put out a list of 56 missouri schools and a number of others who people should be aware of because they were under heightened cash monitoring. now, you know, that's a trailing

indicator, i think those numbers are all two years old, and a number of things there would indicate maybe that's like all these ratings maybe. maybe not all that good. i think sweet breyer had the perfect score right before they announced they were not going to be in business next year. sweet breyer north carolina had a 3.0. harvard dropped to 2.3 during the recession. i think a lot of these ratings are going to have those same kind of problems tom, you look likud like to respond to that? >> not a lot. but sweet breyer is in virginia not north carolina. >> you're right. >> they did decide to close on their own, it wasn't because of the cash management regulations. some of those are minor things, they put out several different categories many some that the schools didn't complete and audit on time. there are some 40 45 minnesota it wasn't a major problem for them, it's just a -- something to look out for --

>> it's a major problem, like the ratings will be a major problem if your school is suddenly rated by some matrix of not filling out the form or something that maybe matters at the department of education but really doesn't matter in terms of whether the school continues to produce a quality student and a quality product. so we'll -- we're going to continue to talk about this until you give up on this. >> from a broader philosophical standpoint, i really respect your expertise in this area. i think a pretty important role that we can play is one around transparency. so what we did and not everyone agreed with this and can we not -- everyone inside our own department agree with this, not too long ago, we put out the list of universities that we're looking at where there are allegations around sexual assault. and an allegation is not a proof of guilt. and we do the investigations and sometimes we find real problems sometimes we clear a place.

but i thought personally, it was important to have that information in the public sphere. same around the heightened cash management, that's -- you know, it's an issue, it means different things there's no whatever, for us to be withholding all of this information from the public not being transparent i think a really important role of government is to be clear on these type of things and to have the public conversation and debate. when we hold all the cards and don't share that with the public, i don't think as a public serve an the we're doing a good job. in lots of these areas, the more we can get honest good information out there, and we need to adjust metrics, we should do that many but i just sort of put this in this broader category. maybe you disagree, but i thought it was important to be public and to be clear about where we were looking at allegations. >> areas that might not be available, maybe we ought to talk about whether the accreditation process itself is transparent enough, available enough. >> i would love to have that

conversation. >> senator murray. >> mr. secretary, i was actually pleased to see that your budget proposed a significant increase for the office of civil rights so it can address its backlog and reduce the amount of time it takes to respond to a complaint and keep up with increasing work loads, all things that make our college campuses safer. ocr now receives about 10,000 complaints a year, that's up from 2010. it's budget is still underfunded and below presequestration levels. their work load includes sexual assaults on campus, which are complex investigations. they take a lot of time. i wanted to ask you today, can you explain to our subcommittee how that increased funding you've requested will help to reduce the backlog? >> yes. this is a really important issue. these are hard, tough difficult issues we struggle with every day, your honest feedback is helpful. because you said we've gone from about 6,000 complaints in

2008 to over 10,000 in 2016. i don't have any evidence to back this. i don't necessarily think there are that many more sexual assaults happening. i just think people know that we are are for sexual assaults happening, but people now know we're open for business and taking this seriously. it was swept under the rug and those consequences psychologically and emotionally are devastating. it is a good thing that people now know that we take it this very, very seriously but it's created an extraordinary workload for our team. in fact we have less staff than when this started. i think one thing we owe these university, but more important by the individuals to bring this to a resolution as quickly as we can. this is traumatic both for the alleged victim and for the alleged perpetrator. and if there was a real you know, something bad really happened, we owe it to the victim to not two through this

for two or three or four years. if the alleged perpetrator is in fact innocent, we owe tight the perpetrate not to have them go through that trauma for a couple of years. so we're just trying to bring these two thoughtful but a relatively speedy resolution and we frankly can't keep up with the demand. 's as simple as that. i wish there were none of these cases. i wish we weren't in this line of work. this is not the reality unfortunately on far too many f our college campuses. and we have an obligation to work as thoughtfully, consistently and honestly and speedily as we can to deal with hugely true lyly traumatic issues. >> we need to make sure that the victim and the perpetrator have an answer. what the you do at the colleges if you find victims who

rightfully need a remedy? >> you've seen again, i'm just so proud oufs of civil rights has done an amazing job with this. you've seen this enter the public dialogue. you've seen it in magazine covers whether his tore lit was swept under the rug. so we think there's been a sea change here. now there's a long way to go. we have to keep learning and getting better together. but you me more an more universities sort of embracing the difficult complex issues not hiding from them and trying to come up with policies and practices that have a process that leads to the right outcome wherever the facts may lead. we've done some significant work. i think the fact that we've been so transparent on this has helped. there are challenges there. >> it's also created -- >> it's created a huge amount of

movement. there are young men and women disproportionately women. and they're heal more safe to hear their voice to be heard. we owe it to them and their family to listen. >> i think your emphasis is correct. students leave college for a lot of reasons, feeling insecure and unsafe snould not be one of them. thank you. last may during a budget committee hearing we talked about the issue of sally may, alleged violation of the civil relief debt. sally mae settled in this that situation and you promised you would pursue every avenue in laws were broken and review all of your service come pliers rplyiers with the review. >> we're checking on the reviews and it looks like may 1 we'll be finished with reviewing the services and finalizing that

review. >> stay tuned next two weeks. >> are you confident that the review is thorough and object ty and will review any issues of denial owed to our service members and veterans? >> it looks like they've been very thorough and they're putting the veterans' needs at the top of the list. >> if you look at the work they've done, they did very thorough thoughtful comprehensive work. we don't rush to judgment in these issues, these situations and they had a lot on their plate but they're working very very hard. >> we look forward to seeing that very soon then. thank you. >> two more quick things. one is on gainful employment. i think under the proposed you estimate -- the department estimates approximately 1400 career training programs serving

840,000 students would not initially meet the standard you're proposing. have you thought about whether that means the standard -- i think the standard is a three-year out of school standard. would they meet it if it was a five-year out of school standard? are you looking at what point these school -- many or most of these schools might meet the standard or would they never meet that standard? >> so my honest take on this is that when we are clear -- and again this is not a high bar. this is i would say, a relatively low bar. when we're clear on that you see behavior change and these are all projections going forward. again we have maximum transparency. every institution has these facts and we think we'll see more good programs grow and bad programs either change or go away. we think all of the outcomes more good programs fantastic, bad programs improving that's fantastic or bad programs being

e limb naughted those are all positive outcomes. i'm hopeful about where this thing goes. >> would you envision the school financial officer would begin to say don't major in art history? >> no. this is at the program level. again, institutions that have 50 or 100 programs. this is not at -- it's trying to say at the program level do graduates have a good chance at having a better financial few chr or sat ld with debt they can't pay back. there's huge variation across programs and between schools. we're trying to make sure that people again yours and my huge investment in tax dollars every single year, often 90% of more of the revenue is coming from us with and using it for good rather than just for pure profit. >> you know i did also think senator capito's points were point we needed to talk about of the debt problem when you get

out of school how much of that related to the actual cost of going to school and how much equated to what your thought your living standards should be when you went to school. i'm pretty confident that over the years the student expectations for their personal living standard of school often increased where they would have been just a few years ago. >> may be a piece. i don't know if that's a huge piece of the puzzle but we should be looking at all of these things. happy to have that conversation. >> i would like for you to look at your data on that and see. i think it may be a bigger piece of the puzzle than we think when you think about the debt at the schools that don't have that high of a tuition, number of books number even an on-campus living number. you can still see graduates graduating with debt that you wonder how that debt accumulated. the last thing i'm going to ask you to do is on this -- i'd like for you to provide a year-to-year summary of marketing and advertising

expenses for the department over the last three fiscal years. this relates to a topic i'm interested in, whether we should identify that the assistant taxpayer funded marketing effort and it would help me to know how needed that is if we knew what your marketing and advertising expenses -- >> we don't do a whole heck of that at all. happy to provide that for you. >> chairman? >> nothing further. >> mr. secretary, thank you for you and your staff today. you can tell there's a lot of interest in this committee in what you do and it's important to the country what you do and we're grate f to have your time and patience today. >> thanks for your leadership and thanks for the opportunity. >> the record will be open for any questions to be submitted in writing. the subcommittee will stand in recess. we'll leave the record open for one week for additional questions and we'll stand in recess until 10:00 a.m. thursday the 23rd of april.

this weekend is full of live event college. politics on c spand, fest scrawl of books on book tf and historians discuss the end of the civil war on american history tv. on c-span saturday morning 10:00 eastern, live all day coverage first in the nation leadership summit. speakers include ted cruz, scott walker john casic and kentucky senator rand paul. saturday at 1:30 p.m. eastern on

c-span 2, book tv the live for the los angeles times festival of books with panels on journalism and publishing and author call ins from the day. tva vis smiler, radio talk show host hugh hewitt. the coverage of the festival of books continues sunday at 2:00 with authors that will be taking your phone calls throughout the day. and on c-span3 statd morning 8:45 eastern for an all-time event on the end of the civil war. speakers including caroline janney, james mcfearson and barbara gannon. sunday at 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. eastern, the 150th anniversary of president lincoln's assassination. we'll take a tour of peterson house where the president died.

get the complete schedule at c-span.org. at age 25 she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies. and during the revolution, while in her mid-40s she was considered an enemy by the british. later she'd become our nation's first first lady at age 57. martha washington, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series first ladies influence and image. examining the public and private lives of people from martha washington to michelle obama sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. and as a compliment c-span's new books, "first ladies." providing lively stories of the fascinating women, creating an illuminating inspiring read. it's available as a hard cover

or e book through your favorite bookstore or online book seller. on tuesday the house judiciary committee held and oversight hearing. the director testified before the committee on the enforcement of immigration laws and the apprehension and removal of illegal immigrants with criminal records. congress good lad chairs the meeting. it's two hour and 20 minutes. good morning. the judiciary committee will come to order.

without objection, the chair authorized to declare resources of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on oversight of u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. i'll begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. as the obama administration consistently shrinks the universe of criminal and unlawful aliens that u.s. immigrations and customs enforcement can remove, i.c.e. apprehensions have decreased 40% since this time last year. i.c.e. arrest of criminal aliens decline 42%. the average daily population of aliens in custody declined to approximately 26,000 beds. this has occurred despite a mandate in law that requires i.c.e. to maintain a 34,000 average daily population in

detention facilities, and the number of unlawful or criminal aliens that i.c.e. has removed from the interior of the country has fallen by more than half since 2008. many factors have contributed to the sharp decline of interior immigration enforcement under this administration, including the collapse of issuance and compliance with i.c.e. detainers because of i.c.e.'s policy issued on 20-21-14. i.c.e.'s implementation of its new priorities announced by secretary johnson on september 20, 2014 and the demise of the community programs on the same date. detainers are a key tool used by i.c.e.

they are notices issued by i.c.e. and other dhs units that ask federal, local, law enforcement agencies not to release removable aliens from their facility in order for i.c.e. to take them into its custody and put them in removal proceedings. due to the detainer debacle this administration has created, i.c.e. officers must wake up in the early hours of the morning, put their lives at risk and go out into the community to april presented convicted criminal aliens that have been released on to the streets. director, you yourself are part of the confusion. you testified before congress one day stating that detainers should be made mandatory and the next day you retracted your testimony. when aliens released onto the streets go on to commit additional crimes yet could have been placed in i.c.e. custody, this administration is responsible. from january 1, 2014 to september 30, 2014, over 10,000 detainers were not honored. the recidivism rate for these aliens was 29%. innocent citizens and law enforcement officers could be injured, maimed, or murdered due

to a detainer not being issued or honored because of this administration's policies. the administration is responsible and will be held accountable. when president obama announced unilateral changes to our immigration system with a wave of his pen and cell phone on november 20, 2014, he indicated that he would allow millions of unlawful and criminal aliens to evade immigration enforcement. he did this with the issuance of new so-called u.s. immigration and customs enforcement priorities for the apprehension, detention and removal of aliens. under the obama administration new enforcement priorities, broad categories of unlawful and criminal aliens will be beyond the reach of the law even if they don't qualify for the president's unconstitutional legalization programs. this means that millions of removable aliens will remain in the u.s. without risk of removal.

simultaneously the president stopped the communities. despite the fact that the president claims he took action to prioritize immigration enforcement against criminal aliens, he is scrapping a tool that identifies criminal aliens booked in jails across the united states so that federal law enforcement officials can prioritize their removal. secure communities created in 2008 was a simple and highly successful tool to identify criminal aliens once in jail. it protected american citizens and immigrants alike from aliens who are a danger to their communities. as i.c.e. has said on numerous secure communities simply uses an already existing federal information sharing partnership between i.c.e. and the federal bureau of investigation that helps to identify criminal

aliens so i.c.e can taken forceable action. as of august 2014, administration indicated that over 375,000 convicted criminal aliens were removed as a result of secure communities. we just learned that in addition to releasing over 36,000 convicted criminal aliens in fiscal year 2013, i.c.e. released 35,538 criminal aliens in fiscal year 2014 pursuant to its so-called priorities. the agency released thousands of criminal aliens convicted of offenses involving dangerous drugs, assault and domestic violence, stolen vehicles, robbery, sex offenses, sexual assault, kidnapping, voluntary manslaughter and even homicide. 27% of the aliens released were so-called level ones, according to the administration, the worst of the worst. director, i.c.e.'s first duty and highest obligation is public safety. the nonsensical actions of this administration demonstrate its lack of desire to enforce the law even against unlawful aliens convicted of serious crimes.

i can only hope that as the new director of i.c.e., you will reconsider these policies put in place by your predecessors and return i.c.e. to an agency that puts public safety and the enforcement of our immigration laws as its number one concern. it's now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the immigration and border security subcommittee, the gentlewoman from california for her opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today's hearing is our first opportunity as a committee to speak with the honorable sarah saldana, the director of u.s. immigration and customs enforcement known as i.c.e. the job is a difficult one. i think we can all agree on that point. i look forward to hearing more about how she intends to approach the challenge. she must implement a series of

immigration enforcement memoranda. three grew out of a directive issued last march by president obama when he asked secretary johnson to do an inventory of the department's current practices to see how it can conduct enforcement more humanely within the confines of the law. i believe the memoranda contained a number of common sense reforms to our immigration enforcement efforts and they represent the secretary's best efforts to carry out the president's directive. it's important to remember that these reforms did not take place overnight and they were developed to respond to a particular problem that we've observed over many years. during the bush administration, i.c.e. officials regularly conducted work site raids targeting people who were living and working in the country without authorization but who posed no threat to national security or public safety. half of the people deported from the interior by i.c.e. in the

last administration had never been convicted of a crime or had been convicted only of immigration or traffic offenses. many were helping to grow our economy, put food on our table while also supporting their own american spouses and children. now the bush administration began to shift away from that unfocused style enforcement in its final years and this administration has sought to continue the trend. because earlier efforts fell short, secretary johnson's november memo hones in more carefully on the department's top three civil immigration enforcement priorities and incorporates clear prosecutorial discretion guidance. the memo explains that prosecutorial discretion may be exercised not only for persons who fall outside of those priorities, but also for persons

who appear it to be priorities but who have compelling, extenuating circumstances. the memo directs immigration officials to consider individual circumstances, such as the length of time they have lived in the united states, military service, number of years that have passed since an offense, family and community ties and other compelling humanitarian factors such as poor health, age, pregnancy or young children. the memorandum makes clear that decisions should be based on the totality of the circumstances. given limited resources it makes sense to focus first on persons who pose a threat to national security or public safety before we turn our attention to people who have lived in the country for years and who are contributing members of their communities. i hope we will hear today what the agency is doing to ensure that the totality of the circumstances is considered in each case. i'm concerned about reports that i continue to receive about enforcement actions being taken against people who appear to be

candidates for prosecutorial discretion. the well-publicized case from a pastor from iowa. although pastor max's 17-year-old conviction for driving while intoxicated undoubtedly counts as a significant misdemeanor and undoubtedly places him within priority 2 category, the extended length of time since that offense, his four u.s. citizen children, and his years of service to his congregation appeared to make him an ideal candidate for discretion, yet he was deported to honduras last month. the memorandum also explains that detention resources should not be used for persons known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness, who are elderly, pregnant or nursing and who demonstrate they are

primary caretaker's of children or infirm persons. when i talk about these issues, i'm always reminded of a man who testified before the subcommittee four months before he died from cancer during his detention in i.c.e. custody. i was reminded about him again, when i read about a detainee who died of intestinal cancer while in custody once again. i believe it is difficult to square the language in the memo with the department's current policy of holding women and children in family detention for eight, nine, ten months, even after they have established a credible fear of prosecution. in recent months we've heard detention of a child with brain

cancer, a mother with ovarian cancer, a mother with a congenital disorder. we are aware of at least one suicide attempt by a woman at the new delhi facility. our experience contracting with private prison companies to run family detention facilities has not been a good one. when the corrections corporation of america received a contract to convert a medium security prison into what became the huto facility, the results were awful. after litigation, congressional oversight and sustained public outrage, families were moved out of the facility. i'm concerned that today we're making the same mistake we made then but on a much larger scale. finally, i think secretary johnson was wise to announce the end of secure communities. right from the start the program was based on misrepresentation to federal state and local officials including me. it became deeply unpopular when it became clear that it was

largely being used to apprehend and remove noncriminals and court challenges and legislative changes rendered the program largely defunct. when i spoke last month about it, we agreed that i.c.e. must first regain the trust of state and local governments and law enforcement agencies and that process begins again with regaining the trust of immigration communities. i believe the dhs memorandum has put us on the right track to a common sense approach on immigration enforcement. i'm looking forward to working with the director. and, mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to put two things in the record, one a letter from we belong together about this hearing, and also the appropriations language that does not specify 34,000 people in detention. it says the department shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds.

that's not people, but beds, and i think we need to make clear what the statute requires. and i would ask unanimous consent to both of those in the record. i would yield back. >> the time has expired. without objection, her requests will be granted. without objection, i would like to place in the record of criminal convictions associated with the releases in 2014 and the enforcement and removal operations weekly report for the week of march 29 to april 4, 2015. the chair now is pleased to recognize the chairman of the immigration and border security subcommittee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as we approach this hearing, mr. chairman, we are wise to keep in mind the primary duty of

government, at least in my judgment, the security and protection of the american people. immigration has a key part of that duty. we entrust them with the enforcement laws. in fact, mr. chairman, on the i.c.e. website, it reads, enforces federal laws governing border control, customs trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety. given the critically important mission entrusted to i.c.e., we take our oversight to that agency seriously and i.c.e.'s work has an immense impact on the people we work for. i.c.e. has been plagued for by morale, so one have himself or herself even accepting the challenges of being in law enforcement generally, why is morale that low. could it possibly be that women

and men who signed up to enforce the law are now being asked not to? we also know there's a deep deficit of trust among our fellow americans with regard to the immigration system. for years they have been promised an immigration system that works and secure border. those promises have not been kept by either party. decisions by administrations in both parties to selectively enforce our immigration laws have had a negative effect on our system such as the case any time one selectively enforces the law. and you would think we would have learned that lesson by now but apparently we have not. last year, president obama declared unilaterally almost 5 million undocumented aliens would receive deferred action under some newfangled definition of prosecutorial discretion. moreover, in addition to using prosecutorial discretion as a license to rewrite the law, he also conferred benefits on these same people.

so, mr. chairman, i want people to just understand this. the decision to avoid the application of consequences is very different from the decision to confer benefits on that same class or group. those are two very different concepts. one, it can easily be argued is constitutionally rooted, albeit on a case by case basis. and the other, the conferring of benefits, is a purely political calculation without much grounding, if at all, in the law. mr. chairman, folks may like the president's policy. they may wish the policy were the law, but one person does not make law in a republic. and we should take heed that those who benefit from the nonapplication of the law today will be crying out for the full application of the law tomorrow, because such is the nature of the law. once it is eroded, you do not

restore it without great consequence. in fact, the president himself agreed with that and said, and i quote, the notion that i could just suspend deportations through executive orders is just not the case. he told us time and time and time again. he also reminded us that he was not a king. his position may have changed but the constitution has not. prosecutorial discretion is real and constitutionally valid, but it is not a synonym for anarchy. as a u.s. district judge recently wrote in his recent opinion, dhs does have discretion in the manner in which fulfills the express will of congress. it cannot enact a program that ignores the dictates of congress but actively moves to thwart them. in effect, the administration

has asked i.c.e. officers to stop enforcing entire categories of our immigration law. and not only that, but under the current administration new enforcement priorities, millions of aliens who were not eligible to benefit to amnesty can simply remain in the u.s. in violation of the law without fear of enforcement. and mr. chairman you have touched upon the detainer issue and i look forward to going into that. i welcome the new director who is a former u.s. attorney and i hold anyone who has had that title in extremely high regard, but i'm interested in hearing, because of her unique background, i want to hear her address the limitations on the doctrine of the prosecutorial discretion. i want to hear why the president was wrong 22 times when he said he could not do what he just did. i'm hearing to discuss whether prosecutorial discretion can be applied in all categories of the law. i'm eager to hear her address the number of aliens to abscond.

what is being done on the front end to address what is happening. i'm interested in particularly what she's going to do to restore morale and pride in this agency. the folks i talked to, honestly, mr. chairman, would pick another agency or even another line of work. with that, i would yield back. chair, thanks the gentleman and now pleased to recognize the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman goodlet. i want to add my welcome to director sarah saldana in her first appearance before the house judiciary committee. we're advised of your great experience in immigration, customs enforcement as a u.s. attorney for the northern district of texas, an assistant u.s. attorney for northern district of texas, and in your

prosecution of a number of criminal cases. you've also worked at the equal employment opportunities commission, the department of housing and urban development and the department of labor. what a background. and i'm confident that you will be an exceptional leader of the largest investigative agency within the department of homeland security. now, this presents enormous challenges but also opportunities, and we're looking to hear from you on that account. now, the director comes to the agency at a time of renewed focus. last march, president obama directed the secretary of homeland security, jay johnson, to review our immigration

enforcement policies to ensure that we are carrying them out in the most humane way possible. in november, the secretary announced a series of common sense reforms to ensure that our laws are enforced in a humane way, but also that limited resources, our focus on enhancing the safety and the security of the country. secretary johnson issued a memorandum identifying three categories of persons as department wide priorities for enforcement. the top priority includes people who pose a threat to national security, border security, and public safety. notably, these priorities mean the agency will focus resources

on deporting felons before raiding kitchens and fields for bus boys and farm workers. focusing limited agency resources on that is simply good public policy. the memo also explains that enforcement always should be done in a sensible manner that takes into consideration the totality of the circumstances. in deciding whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a given case, immigration officials should consider factors such as the circumstances surrounding a conviction, the length of time that has passed since an offense was committed, and the deep ties that a person may have in this country.

this is a humane approach that ensures efforts are focused on the worst offenders in our society and not on individuals with strong community ties and compelling circumstances. i support this approach. director saldana comes to the agency at a time of some uncertainty. two important initiatives have been preliminarily halted by a district court in texas. deferred action for parents of americans in lawful permanent residence and expansions to deferred action for childhood arrivals. but the court was clear that its decision had no effect on the memorandum that set enforcement priorities and provided prosecutorial discretion guidance.

with so much uncertainty and distrust of the agency swirling in immigrant communities, it's important for ice to communicate clearly that it still intends to use its prosecutorial discretion in a sensible manner and as directed by the secretary. as always, actions ultimately speak louder than words, and finally, as i've noted before, the administration's use of prosecutorial discretion does not absolve the congress of its responsibility to pass comprehensive immigration reform. top-to-bottom reform of our broken immigration system can only be accomplished through bold legislative action. it's time for us, the congress, to start doing its job. and i thank the chairman.

>> thank you, mr. conyers. we welcome our distinguished witness today, if you would rise, i'll begin by swearing you in. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. let the record reflect that the witness responded in the affirmative. ms. sarah r. saldana currently serves as director of immigration and customs enforcement where she is tasked with overseeing the enforcement of more than 400 federal statutes preventing terrorism and combatting the illegal movement of people and trade. prior to becoming director of i.c.e., director saldana served as the united states attorney for the northern district of texas. before joining the department of justice, she worked in private practice and at the equal employment opportunity commission housing and urban development under the department of labor.

director saldana graduated summa cum laude from texas university. i want to take a moment to thank you and your staff for the good work that has been done in helping us prepare for this hearing. the homeland security investigations, the enforcement and removal operations, the office of congressional relations and individuals in i.c.e.'s front office who communicated with the committee ahead of this hearing and provided responsive information to some of our substantial requests. this type of communication and coordination is new in our experience with your agency in recent years and i hope that it continues and i thank you very much for your efforts. when i met with you a few weeks ago, you committed to working closely with the congress, and you have fulfilled that in answering our requests for preparation for the hearing. your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety and i ask that you

summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within that time, there's a timing light on your table and when the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. director saldana, welcome. >> thank you so much, chairman goodlet, ranking member, esteemed members of this committee. you are right, this is my first appearance before this committee, and also with respect to my prior service as the united states attorney for the northern district of texas, a duty that i undertook and am very proud of. in that period of time that i was the united states attorney i had the great privilege of working with both homeland security investigation, hsi agents, a couple of whom are here today, and with the enforcement and removal operation folks with respect to removals and the need for federal intervention in

connection with some of those. during that time, i personally observed, i personally observed the dedication, commitment, hard work of the women and men of immigration and customs enforcement all through the ranks, deportation officers, international and mission support staff, attorneys all of them, working very hard to keep our homeland safe. it's a great privilege to continue my law enforcement career in this capacity as a director of the agency. as was mentioned earlier, ice does enforce over 400 laws. in my work as the utilizes attorney, somebody stopped counting at 3,000 that united states attorneys enforce, it's a difficult challenge to enforce that -- did you refer to that as

an attorney, representative conyers, i believe you did. i consider it a privilege. i appreciate the importance of this mission. i assure you. and i know as you do that having a productive and collaborative relationship with you and the other committees of this congress is essential to meet the responsibilities the american people expect. my goals over the next few years are to enhance i.c.e.'s important cybersecurity and proximate initiatives to focus priorities on individuals, who improve morale in the workforce and to improve communication between i.c.e. and all of its partners. for today's hearings, let me provide an overview of what i.c.e. does, a little bit of highlight with respect to our challenges. in ero there are two parts to i.c.e. besides the laws, we've got

enforcement removal and homeland security investigations. in ero we have 6,000 very dedicated law enforcement officers who go about the business of removing, representing and removing those people that present the greatest risk to the american public. in carrying out this responsible, they have a wide array of responsibilities, including operating i.c.e.'s detention facilities, making arrangements for transportation across the world in removing individuals from the united states and obtaining travel documents from other requirements, with all kinds of requirements. they work very closely with their sister agencies, custom and border protection and citizenship and immigration services all within homeland. hsi, on the other hand, focuses on criminal international criminal investigations, and anything dealing with the illegal movement of people and things in and out and within the country for that matter. while ero enforces civil

litigation, hsi focuses on the criminal aspects. that's the area in which i obviously dealt mostly as united states attorney and assistant united states attorney. a couple of words on our successes. and this isn't the end of the story. this is the beginning of it. i look forward to reporting even better results in the future. ero removed nearly 316,000 individuals, unlawfully present in the united states in 2014. more than 102,000 were apprehended in the interior of the united states, and perhaps more importantly, 85% of those were immigrants previously convicted of a criminal offense. this demonstrates our renewed focus on the worst criminals. convicted felons, gang members and other threats to our national security. that number, 85% of immigrants who are convicted of criminal offense is an 18% increase over prior years, 2011 in particular.

hsi, the investigative arm arrested more than 32,000 criminals, seized narcotics, 35,000 weapons and $772 million in currency. the challenges. you all know about last summer and the influx and overwhelming unexpected influx of families and unaccompanied children. which taxed the resources of many families, not just i.c.e. i.c.e. had to sign about 800 personnel to the rio grande valley crisis, and obviously that takes away from the work that you do day to day. secondly, the reductions that you all referred to earlier with the respect to our detainers. last year almost 12,000 detainer requests from i.c.e. were not honored by state and local jurisdictions. one of my priorities is to

reverse that trend. to this end, we're enforcing pep, as it's known, which purely reflects dhs's new priorities. i terribly regret if i have added to the confusion with respect to detainers. my interest is in public safety. it's not in quibbling with people over how we accomplish that goal. and i believe -- i want to be sure everyone understands that i am committed to the priority enforcement program that the secretary has directed us to enforce. finally, of course, is the change in the demographics in the migrant communities. people coming to south america takes more resources, more time, more people. rather than to mexico or canada. my first months have director have been full. not only in becoming familiar with the challenges and the

accomplishments of the agencies i just described, but in developing plans to address all of these challenges. like so many of you i left my family, my friends, the great state of texas, in which i've lived all my life, to come to the district of columbia to participate with you all in an effort to try to bring some rationality to this very important mission of i.c.e. that is the only reason i'm here. it's not for the glory. and it's not for the big bucks. i will tell you that i need your help to accomplish that goal and to move the agency forward in that regard. so i ask for your help in doing so. i welcome your questions. >> well, thank you, director saldana. i'll start, and i'll start with some recent quotes. one by the president and one by you that i find disturbing. you just alluded to one a moment ago. but first, the president recently at a town hall stated

regarding the new dhs enforcement priorities is that the bottom line is if somebody is working for i.c.e. and there's a policy and they don't follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it. he analogized it to the u.s. military and the requirement that you follow orders. i.c.e. officers are required to enforce the laws that congress enacts. do you agree with that? >> absolutely. >> please explain to the committee the type of consequences that i.c.e. officers may face if they do not execute the new policies which in instances contradict those laws. don't you think an i.c.e. officer hearing threats for the president would be scared to enforce the law? >> i give them more credit than that, mr. chairman. i will tell you that with respect to enforcement of any policy of the department or immigration and customs enforcement, new or old, certainly just as you do with your staff, we expect compliance with that policy. >> if they detain somebody who

doesn't meet the priorities but is in violation of a law enacted by the congress, are they going to be punished for doing that? >> the word is not punished, sir. it's enforcing the law as -- >> what's going to happen to an i.c.e. agent who enforces the law that is contradictory to the president's policies which says don't enforce the law with regard to certain people? >> that's not my view of the president's policy, sir. the executive action actually -- >> he said it. not me. >> that is not my view of the president's policies. i believe they're actually directed in a very rational way. i mentioned earlier -- >> right. the point is, though, the law encompasses far more illegal activity than those set forth in the president's policies. and i want to know what happens to an i.c.e. agent, may have been working for the agency for years following the law, upholding the law. and who detained somebody who is

not covered under that policy. what is going to happen to that i.c.e. agency under those circumstances. >> let me tell you something, sir. you mentioned something about the full extent of the law. part of that in my view, as my view as the united states attorney, i mentioned 3,000 laws when we stopped counting. i could not enforce every one of those laws as the main prosecutor for the united states. but i could actually make priorities within my office and did. >> you're not answering my questions so let me go onto one that involves you. you testified on march 19th, expressing your support for mandatory detainers. the very next day you retracted that statement made under oath and called mandatory detainers highly counterproductive. in 2014 local jurisdictions declined to honor approximately 12,000 detainers. so far if 2015 there have been approximately 3,000 detainer

denials. there are more than 200 jurisdictions that refuse to honor i.c.e. detainers effectively releasing criminal aliens out on to our streets. while you flip-flop, before congress and the american people, i.c.e. officers go out into the community and conduct at-large operations in order to apprehend released criminal aliens. it makes their job much, much harder. right? instead of just going to the jail and getting the detained alien to put them through the deportation process, they have to go out, find them, apprehend them, sometimes under very dangerous circumstances. this puts their lives at risks. threatens public safety and expends limited federal resources. if a detainer was effective, a transfer would have occurred. this is the problem. and your solution, the administration's solution is a failure. politely asking for cooperation from house and jurisdictions. so-called sanctuary cities is a fool's errand. isn't the clear answer to this

problem a requirement for everyone to honor i.c.e.'s detainer authority? an authority that keeps our communities and our law enforcement officers safe? >> that authority is being challenged in court, sir. there's lawsuits across the country on that very issue. >> why hasn't your agency and the department of justice and the department of homeland security defended those lawsuits against these detainers? why haven't you taken affirmative decision to say, yes, the detainers need to be honored? >> i will tell you that i have the same concern you do, sir. public safety of our officers is paramount in my estimate. i went on operation cross check back in february wearing a bullet proof vest, there to watch the operation in practice. we were actually trying to reach out and find criminal undocumented immigrants. i am very concerned about the

risks they face. but i will tell you that i believe that the p.e.p. program, if we give it a chance -- and again, i do regret that confusion i caused with respect to my statement. and the only reason for the statement the following day was because i had been asked whether it would help law enforcement, and let me tell you, sir, i do -- my reaction was focused on that. what helps law enforcement. but i am committed to p.e.p. i am committed to asking communities to assist us. i am committed to persuade them the best thing for the safety of their own communities is to cooperate with the united states and the efforts to enforce the immigration laws in accordance with the president's priorities. >> thank you. my time is expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan for his comments. >> thank you, chairman. director saldana, you make me feel more comfortable now that we've read and listened to your

performance here before the house judiciary committee. there are three things i wanted to bring to your attention and get your comments on. one is the, the idea that the memorandum was not affected by the court's ruling, and that i.c.e. intends to fully implement the secretary's memorandum. could you comment on that? >> i believe what you're referring to, congressman, is the fact that there is a ruling that stops, calls to a halt, expanded doca and the new doca program. >> yes. >> and we are obviously, all the agencies to my knowledge, are complying with that ruling. and it will make its way through

the appellate courts. but it did not affect -- it did not affect the november 20th enunciation of our priorities that we have clearly told our people. we put in the field substantial training on this, sir. and every officer uses one of these cards, which clearly outlines those priorities. they carry it with them. quite frankly, i carry it myself and try to make sure that each of these priorities, both with respect to -- the first one is outlined in the front. the second and third priorities on the back. again, trying to make an effort to clarify for law enforcement where our priorities should be. so that is what is meant by that. that we're not --

the only thing affected by the injunction was the expansion of doca and the new initiation of the program. >> very good. now what steps is i.c.e. taking to ensure that persons who are not a priority for removal are not targeted for enforcement actions, or are not inadvertently swept up in enforcement actions? >> well, one of the steps, sir, is the training. and it was substantial and we just completed it in january, which was the initiation kickoff of the executive action, and that includes the priorities. i have met with every one of the field office directors in the entire country by video. i have directed them, that if they have any questions, they are to raise it up their chain and ultimately to me who bears the ultimate responsibility with respect to the appropriate enforcement of those priorities, we have -- our training doesn't stop just with that that was completed initially. it was a continuing kind of spectrum.

and i have also met with our lawyers. there are about 900 of them across the country that work with the immigration courts in order to ensure in their review of the priorities and the people who have been targeted for enforcement that we're complying with those priorities. >> very good. let me ask this question about some reports that have come to our attention about mothers and children in family detention. there was a memo drafted by the secretary explaining field officers and directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness. in light of this memo, how, if you know, does i.c.e. justify detaining mothers and children with such serious physical or mental illnesses?

>> i think you're also aware, representative, of the injunction that was imposed by the washington, d.c. court with respect to the detention of families, and not to use the deterrence as a factor. every one of those families, just like others, is afforded the opportunities provided by law, with respect to seeking asylum, seeking some relief from the united states with respect to their presence here. i will say, i have met with the secretary many times discussing this very same subject. i just met on thursday of last week with religious leaders from all sectors of the religious community who expressed very serious concerns about the detention of families and children, and we are doing our best right now. i know that the secretary has considered it. i know that we have released

with respect to that injunction quite a few of these families. some of them continue because they cannot meet the detention bond. it's something that's been well considered by the secretary. for now we're going to hold with respect for particularly new interests. entrants, sir. which is part of the priorities, that line. >> madame director, i thank you for your candid responses. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, a recent public opinion poll apparently shows that the american people repudiate president obama's immigration policies. this was a rasmussen report national survey just a few days ago that found that 62% of the american people believe the administration is not doing enough to deport illegal immigrants. this is up ten points from just a year ago. i think this is the american

people's response to the president's executive amnesty orders. contrary to what the american people want, it appears the deportations are down this year. you said a while ago about 85% are those who have been convicted of crimes. that means only about 1 out of 300 other illegal immigrants are going to be removed from our country. in my opinion, that is ignoring immigration laws. furthermore, the administration, as you also mentioned, released about 30,000 convicted illegal immigrants and allowed them to be returned to our communities. one-quarter of these 30,000 criminal aliens had been convicted of level one crimes, such as murder, rape, and sexual

abuse of a minor. of those 30,000, only 8% were cases. thousands could have been deported. why did you -- why did the administration intentionally endanger the lives of innocent americans by releasing thousands of criminal aliens into our neighborhoods? >> representative, this is an area of great concern for me when i first started in january. >> if it's of great concern, why did you do it? >> i would like to explain. >> sure. >> why we are moving forward as we are. we do not have a policy, our decisions, whether they're detention decisions, bond decisions, release decisions are governed by several things and often involve the courts. as you know, and i think the chairman noted, about half in 2014 of the releases were, as a result, and which required us to

release people -- >> you haven't contradicted it. if the administration is intentionally releasing thousands of individuals, these are convicted individuals of serious crimes back into our neighborhoods and communities. it actually increased over the last year from the year before. why are you doing this to the american people? you know their rate is high. you know these individuals are going to be convicted of other crimes. why are you doing this to the american people? >> if i may answer, sir. if i may complete my answer. what i am saying is, again, let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples. we're talking about 55% of those having been iced discretionary decisions. which i think is the heart of your concern. >> i'm going to concede several thousand are in the category. that still leaves thousands of people that should be deported, in my opinion, that are not being deported that are endangering innocent americans. again, why are you doing this? >> because the congress lays out

due process, sir, for every person that is detained. >> are you disagreeing? are you saying you cannot deport these individuals? >> i cannot deport any individual without an order from the court. either immigration court or federal court. >> and you're not trying to do it. again, why not? >> we only make decisions with respect to -- you know the criminal justice system releases murderers, rapists, sexual assaulters every day. when a federal judge decides. you know, this person does not present a flight risk or a safe -- a danger to the community. that's the same considerations the law and the regulations -- >> the law requires us to deport the individuals if you want to. director, you are not giving the american people a good answer. i hope you will be come back with a better answer in the future. you said one of the reasons they

terminated the committees is because local jurisdictions failed to comply with it. this is interesting. you don't feel that if local jurisdictions want to comply with federal laws, they don't need to, or you're going to not force them to do so. but have you challenged any of the local jurisdictions to comply with the current federal law? and let me read you that federal law real quickly. it says they may not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from -- >> sir, i'm sorry. >> -- service information regarding the citizenship of immigration status -- >> representative smith, i'm having difficulty hearing you. >> take my word. current law says that local communities should be able to work together with local and federal officials to remove individuals. you said one reason you're not enforceing it is because local communities aren't complying with it.

>> again, that is a subject of litigation. you yourself just said should cooperate. >> what has the the administration done to try and enforce current law -- >> we have met -- >> you never filed a lawsuit against any entity. excuse me. >> there are plenty of lawsuits out there -- >> excuse me. i'm sorry representative. there are still plenty of lawsuits out there. i'm not going to opine or get in the middle of those. >> i'm not asking you to. the administration has not done anything to try to enforce the current secure communities law. >> that comes as a surprise to me. i personally haven't engageded -- >> the administration has done the opposite. >> may i answer the question, please? i really do want the american public to understand that i'm not sitting on my hands. i actually have gotten out to meet with the major city police chiefs. the major county sheriffs. the california corps of sheriffs

when they were in town a couple months ago and other jurisdictions to personally advise them of what the parameters of the law were. what we're doing to work with them. >> but you said in your own testimony -- >> time of the gentleman has expired -- >> i'll yield back, mr. chairman. but i'm so sorry that the american people aren't getting good answers today. >> the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. >> mr. chairman, i would just like to say i think it's disappointing that the witness, the director was not really given an opportunity to answer the questions, and i don't want to use all my time on mr. smith's questions. but i will say so far as i know, and you can say yes or no, the fingerprints taken in the detention facilities are still being received by the federal government. >> yes, that hasn't changed. >> that has not changed. what has changed is the litigation. and i'll use the state of california as an example. the state of california passed

the trust act that says the counties are not to deliver people who have committed no offense or a minor traffic offense of that sort. why is that? i mean, in my own county, the board of supervisors and sheriffs decided they will turn over individuals or hold if they're indemnified. why? because they can't lawfully hold somebody without probable cause that is crime has been committed. so you are trying to fix that. >> and i offered it to you during the reading earlier. >> i'm sorry. i've got cough drops here. >> i do, too. >> and i offered during the meeting a common visit with the local officials and -- >> but the point is you're being asked to violate court orders. and you can't do that. that's correct? >> i'm here to enforce the law. >> that's correct.

i want to talk about family detention. i know you mentioned the meeting that you had. our policy adopted in november says that we should prioritize families, not felons. however we have increasing numbers of families, not felons, being held in detention centers. and i'm concerned about the contractor that is in charge of much of this. i understand there were women either on a hunger strike or a religious fast, i don't know how you want to -- at the kearns county residential center, we have staff down there over the easter break who observed and discussed with some of the women that they had been put in

medical isolation. some of these women have been held for six, seven, eight months with their children. we have, and i would ask unanimous consent to put in the record an affidavit from the dean of the school's social work at the university of texas in austin. and in the declaration the dean explains that he's interviewed several families at the kearns detention center and found, quote, detention had serious and long lasting impacts on the health and well being of the families i interviewed at kearns. so i'm just concerned. we don't have a pediatrician on site. nor at the facility in pennsylvania. we have over 100 children. being detained. we have evidence of lasting and serious adverse impacts on the well being of the children that are being held in jail. i want to know what process we're going to use to review that.