ms. delauro: eliminating a temporary fix for rejected borrowers who thought they qualified for public service loan forgiveness and slashing adult education, federal work study, treeo and gearup.

on the -- trio and gearup. on the mandatory side, this is t in this committee's -- worsening the student debt crisis. in a rare move, the trump administration's own department of defense opposed the house republicans' highest education act re-authorization bill last congress bus it, too, eliminated psls stating, and i quote, d.o.d. opposes this legislation because the public service loan forgiveness program has been an important recruitment and retention tool for the military to compete with the civilian sector. and even a boost to school safety national activities is not what it seems. it seeks to make up for the proposed elimination of $1.2 billion student support and academic enrichment grants which includes a set-aside for

school safety. the grants support mental health counselors and services. in addition to providing a well-rounded education by providing exposure to music and to the arts. the new proposal, still a poorly designed cut that does nothing to look at the role of guns in school shootings. just like the federal commission on school safety failed to do as well. at this point, let me just say that i also continue to support -- i continue to oppose your indefensible silence which leaves the door open to states using federal dollars to arm teachers versus current law. congress never contemplated that the ssae grants would be used for the purchase of firearms. in fact, congress denounced the oppression of guns inle elementary and secondary education act, section 40125-b

which promotes programs that foster, quote, the creation and the maintenance of a school environment free of weapons. and the congress reiterated our opposition of guns in schools and stop school violence act in 2018 in the omnibus. it explicitly prohibits program funds from being used for the purchase of firearms or firearms training. i fought hard on this issue in last year's funding bill, advocating we make clear that congress never contemplated that such flexibility would allow for the purchase of firearms. my proposal was simple. follow current law. but we could not reach consensus but i will keep up the fight. this year we are going to have an opportunity to review charter schools with respect to accountability and effectiveness. the o.i.g. has raised some

issues we must examine including finettings that states mismanage charter school closures and the department failed to provide adequate guidance or oversight on the issue. we are an appropriations committee and we have appropriated serious money, more than $400 million last year alone. we need to conduct oversight. the trump administration would do well to take a page out of the oath that doctors take. their first principle which is, do no harm, and yet, this budget inflicts harm. that is why i raise, again, i do not understand how you can support this budget and be the secretary of education. this budget underfunds education at every turn. from early childhood education, k-12 education, postsecondary education through workforce training. even programs you claim to

support are simply programs that you spare. title 1, idea, these are core programs. they are level funded. that is not sufficient. we have promised and we owe our students and teachers more. and i'm not alone in the criticism here. others, national center for learning disabilities, national association of federally impacted schools, school superintendent association, council for the opportunity and education, council for education funding and others. i would hope that this would be a real concern to you as well. i look forward to the further discussion of your budget request and the other policy areas that are under your jurisdiction. first, let me turn the gavel -- not the gavel -- no, not going to do that. >> that's ok. ms. delauro: not on my watch.

[laughter] ms. delauro: first, let me turn to my colleague and friend, the ranking member from oklahoma, mr. cole. mr. cole: i thank my friend, the chair. if you ever want to rethink that offer, that's ok by me. i want you to know. we would step up and cooperate. good morning, madam secretary. i look forward to hearing your testimony today. former educator myself, i understand how important it is for our children to have access to quality education, and as the parent of a teacher, who works with kids with special challenges, i understand how important the charge that we've given you is. without question, education is one of the most important building blocks for success and access to quality learning directly impacts lifelong development and unlocks each individual's potential. and i commend you for your efforts in this arena, not only as secretary, but as the selfless advocate for reform in the years before you assumed your current position. i was pleased to see that your budget request continues to

prioritize resources to certain populations of children who need additional support. i appreciate the continued investment in these programs, such as for children with special needs and disabilities, for indian education, and rural education and to support english learners. i was also pleased to see your emphasis on charter schools, school safety and other initiatives that support innovation, best practices and school choice. and i continue to be a strong supporter of career and technical education. i'm proud that my home state of oklahoma is leading the way in innovative models for delivering cutting edge skills that can lead to good-paying rewarding careers for students who do not wish to pursue a four-year liberal arts degree. i thank you for your support of those programs as well. madam secretary, your budget, again, proposes to eliminate consolidate or change over two dozen programs. many of those proposals make sense in the context of a re-authorization or

consolidation. but i do believe others are somewhat shortsighted. i'm particularly concerned about the proposal to move the successful trio program from a competitive grant model to a formula grant to states. i'm also concerned about the proposal to consolidate several minority serving institutions, funding into a single stream. as you know, these institutions serve distinct populations with different needs, and i'm not certain that such a change makes sense. i look forward to hearing your discussion of it during the course of your testimony. finally, i think that it may be time in our country, especially, we need more understanding of civics and our shared history. so i was disappointed as an historian to see the american history and civics history line proposed for termination. i know that you were faced with a difficult challenge of making all the pieces fit into a tight budget so i do understand the need for some program terminations and consolidations. however, i caution my fellow

subcommittee members that we need to take a hard look at the impact of some of these cuts will have on our own local school districts and students and i'm sure we'll have a robust conversation to that point. since both my friend, the chairman -- the chair, and madam secretary, you talked about the budget deficit and the wider budget, i want to take -- i will go off script here for a minute and talk just a little bit about that because i think this is what we probably come from different perspectives but i think the numbers will drive us to similar conclusions. not widely known or appreciated, even in congress, but we know the budget has two big components. it's got a discretionary component and it's got an entitlement or mandatory spending component. discretionary component is about 30% of the whole budget. the mandatory part is about 70%. congress, if you look and broke down that 30% into two components, more than half of

it is actually the defense budget and overseas contingency operation. congress is actually spending less money on defense and less money on overseas operations than it was in fiscal year 2010 than this year of fiscal year 2019. so that suggests, frankly, i actually agree with the president's efforts to strengthen defense and we live in a very dangerous world but we're not overspending in this area by any stretch of the imagination. i would also remind my colleagues, the same thing is true with nondefense. we're actually spending less on all these programs, everything from meals on wheels, head start, to the education programs you're in charge of, than we were in fiscal year 2010 and we take into inflation, that means we're spending less. actually on the discretionary side of the budget, congress has done a pretty good job of holding spending flat and actually effectively reducing it as a result of inflation. so where's the deficit coming

from? well, pretty easy. it's coming from the other side of the budget. fiscal year 2010, we were spending roughly $1.9 trillion in mandatory programs. this year it will be close to $2.6 trillion. throw in interest on the national debt, you move from a about $190 billion to a little over $300 billion, i think about $320 billion. so until we get serious about the nondiscretionary side of the budget, you know, that's -- we're not ever going to have a balanced budget and we're going to continue to see, as the baby boomer generation retires and lives longer than any previous generation, a massively increase in spending on that side of the budget. it gives me no pleasure to say this, neither current president nor the last president addressed this. last person that tried to do anything about this was president bush who proposed social security reform back in 2005 and it was smarial shut less less than eager

congress. we need to address those kinds of questions if we will get that and that's important in the context of the programs we are discussing today. much of the pressure that you face and that your fellow cabinet secretaries face you is because neither congress nor the executive branch, under both parties, has been willing to look at the other side of the budget and do the things that are necessary over there to bring us toward balance. i know that today we'll have a very robust discussion. we'll come at it from different points of view and that's ok. i always like to point out to my good friend, the chair, in the previous four years we started at different points but four years in a row we ended up voting for a final bill and last two years president trump signed that bill. i think we'll probably come at this from different points of view, again. that's ok. that's what the legislative process is supposed to be about. but my goal will be at the end of the day to produce a product

that my friends and i on both sides of the aisle can vote for and that the president can sign with a great deal of pride. i suspect that will call for certain amount of compromise along the way. that's the way the appropriations process has always worked and i suspect that's the way it will work again. with that, madam chairman, i'll yield back my time. again, i want to thank the secretary for being here and thank you for holding the hearing. ms. delauro: thank you very much. now it gives me pleasure to turn to our distinguished chair of the full committee, chairwoman nita lowey for any comments she may have. mrs. lowey. mrs. lowey: i, too, want to thank chairwoman delauro, ranking member cole for holding this hearing and i want to join them in welcoming you, secretary devos, before the subcommittee. we are not far into appropriations hearings season but, frankly, i am tired of

hearing about the administration's so-called tough choices. secretary devos, your budget request does not reflect the reality in classrooms across the country. and if enacted, would cause structural damage to communities across the nation. since you've taken over as education secretary, children gun nue to be at risk from violence, sexual assault continues to climb on college campuses, student debt dictates almost every college graduate's professional choices. you n your testimony criticize a republican-controlled congress for increasing your agency's

resources. you're criticizing your agency's resources. is budget relies on an dotal evidence and false con-- an i can dotal evidence and false concepts that -- that you call choice and freedom. you propose complete elimination of 21st century community learning centers, which would leave more than 87,000 new york students without faith, high-quality after-school enrichment and significant cuts to k-12 funding. and even the helen keller national center for deafblind youths and adults. i will go on but i can't help but wonder. we're both parents and i wonder if you visited these centers and you know what they're doing. i visit, by the way, the

after-school programs all the time. and to see those children getting the extra support frankly makes me feel great. i would increase them even more than they are now. so i'm really puzzled about that, among others. while gutting these investments, the administration's budget calls for a new tax credit to support private school vouchers, even though many of these schools are unequipped to ray come date students with disabilities and english language learners. not only do you ignore racial and socioeconomic disparities in our education system, you proposed policies proven to increase the divide by cutting minority science and engineering improvement by $1.5 million and the childcare access means parent in school

program by 70%. your budget would actually decrease the diversity of stem fields and exclude parents with financial need from access to a higher education. a couple words about that. maybe you noticed recently -- i'm a graduate of the bronx high school of science and you notice there have been many articles about the lack of diversity at bronx high and another high school in new york city. i'd be interested in knowing if you have any solution to that. i think people deserve to have the opportunity, and i would look at after-school programs or other concentrations so you can help these students, so you can really say -- and when i visit all these schools i say, you have the opportunity to reach for the stars but if we're not providing them with this kind of support, it seems

o me we are really, frankly, going off on tangents here, there, increasing dollars, but not looking at the investments that are going to help so many of these kids. you propose an increase of $105 million for school safety national activities with the hopes of implementing safety practices that are proven to make schools less safe. the department of education ace budget request is just knorr another example -- just another example of this administration's disregard for facts and disconnect from reality. with this budget request, i'm receiving president trump's message loud and clear. fund the wall with money from our children's schools. i do hope your testimony and response to our questions will

address these deep concerns. and thank you. thank you, madam. ms. delauro: thank you very much. the secretary has completed her testimony which we'll get to in a moment. we will proceed to five-minute rounds for questions. i will recognize members in order of seniority at the time of gaveling in the hearing. then, i will call on members in order of their appearance. madam secretary, we will be happy to place your full testimony into the record. if you would be kind enough to summarize your statement, i want to make sure we leave enough time for everyone's questions. so please begin when you are ready. secretary devos: chairwoman delauro, ranking member cole, chairwoman lowey and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in the president's fiscal year 2020 budget. i thought it would be useful to begin by recalling congress'

commitment when it read -- created the u.s. department of education 40 years ago. then, congress vowed that the move would, quote, not increase the authority of the federal government over education or diminish the responsibility for education, which is reserved to the states. and i'll add, communities and parts. this budget reflects a commitment to that sentiment. it also recognizes who actually funds the government's budget -- american taxpayers. and so we propose congress spend their money wisely, efficiently, and with restraint. the president's fiscal year 2020 budget would reduce overall funding for department programs by $7.1 billion, which is a 10% decrease from 2019's appropriated level. this reduction is similar to last year's request, and the year before that as well. i acknowledge that you rejected those recommendations. i also acknowledge that it's easier to keep spending, to

keep saying yes and to keep saddling tomorrow's generations with today's growing debt. but as has been said, the government will run out of other people's money. over the past 40 years, federal taxpayers spending on education has increased about 180 brs, amounts to over $180%, amounted to over $1.2 trillion accumulatively. we are 24th in reading hrks 25th in science and 40th in math when compared to the rest of the world. doing the same thing and more of it won't bring about new results. i propose a different approach. freedom. this budget focuses on freedom for fichers, freedom for parents -- teachers, freedom for parents, freedom for all students. a great education shouldn't be determined by where you live or by who you know. and it shouldn't be determined by family income. and education shouldn't be an old school industrial age

one-size-fits-all approach. every student is unique and everyone learns differently. every child should be free to learn where and how it works for them, where and how it unlocks their potential. that's why the president's 2020 budget proposes a historic investment in america's students. education freedom scholarships. our bold proposal will offer a dollar-for-dollar federal income tax credit for voluntary contributions for 501-c-3 nonprofit organizations that provide scholarships to school students, not school buildings. these students, their families, teachers, schools, states can choose to participate in the program or they can elect not to participate. it's a choice. and since the proposal relies entirely on voluntary contributions to nonprofit organizations, it won't take a single dollar from local public school teachers or public school students. indeed, our budget maintains

current levels of funding for title 1 and idea. something else. education freedom scholarships aren't only for students who want to attend private schools. in fact, some states may choose to design scholarships for public school options, such as apprenticeships or transportation to a different public school. states have the opportunity to be really imaginative and to serve the unique needs of their students. we don't have to look far to see that education freedom works. thanks to a menu of options and the d.c. opportunity scholarship program embraced by teachers, parents, and students alike, more than half of students in the district attend schools other than their assigned one, and there is still significant unmet demand. we propose congress double the d.c. program's funding to $30 million to meet those students' needs. this administration believes students of all ages should be free to pursue multiple

pathways to higher education and successful careers. that's why this budget proposes to expand use of pell grants for quality short-term programs. it also invests in career and technical education and streamlines student loan repayment. the ladder is urgently -- the latter is urgently necessary because del is $1 trillion in loans, more than total debt and credit card debt. and 43% of those loans are either in default. more than 30 days delinquent or are negatively amor tiesed and taxpayers -- amortized and taxpayers are on the hook. this raises the cap on a borrower's monthly payment to 12.5% of discretionary income. this is one way the federal government can become a more responsible lender. policies should not entice students into greater debt, nor should they put taxpayer dollars at greater risk. education freedom isn't just

for parents and students. teachers need greater freedom as well. we seek to empower america's teachers and elevate their profession via this budget with a new total investment of $370 million. i regularly meet with a number of excellent teachers who tell me they'd like to choose their own professional development and customize it for their needs. to that end, the budget request s an increase of $170 million to focus on development that's controlled by teachers, not dictated by the district office. these are teacher vouchers, and they treat teachers as the professionals they are. teachers also tell me about the value of mentors or residency opportunities, so we're requesting $200 million to enable new teachers more opportunities to learn from the best. it's also essential that teachers and students be safe at school. in the wake of tragic acts of school violence in our country, president trump asked me to

lead a federal commission on school safety. to support the commission's recommendations, we request $200 million to help communities develop their own school emergency plans and to focus on counseling and healthy behaviors for their students. in the end, budgets are about priorities. ours are -- students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers. if our country is to remain secure, strong, prosperous, and free, we need students of all ages who are prepared to pursue successful careers and lead meaningful lives. thank you for this opportunity to testify. i look forward to your questions. delaudelau thank you very much, madam -- ms. delauro: thank you very much, madam secretary. my view full of cruel cuts to education programs, it baffles me you found room for a $60 million inyou crease to the charter school program or c.s.p., especially when you

consider recent reports of waste and abuse in that program. just this morning, "washington post" published reports that up to $1 billion in c.s.p. funding has been wasted on charter schools that never opened or precipitously closed due to mismanagement. in september, the o.i.g. found that the department did not provide effective oversight of processes performed by the states that received c.s.p. funding when their charter schools closed. in response to the i.g.'s findings, the department stated, and i quote, the fundamental principle for guiding states' implementation of charter schools is to provide charter schools' increased levels of autonomy so they may innovate in implementing applicable requirements, independent quotes. in other words, it sounds like you're saying, quote this is not our job. can you explain how you think stopping known waste, fraud, and abuse in the charter school program is not the department's job? why cannot states both follow federal laws and promote

innovation when it comes to charter schools? secretary devos: chairwoman, we're very aware of the issues that this report raised, and it actually covers practices that long predate this administration. the fact congress took action to address these concerns, and it was prior to the re-authorization of esea. we are very keen to ensure that the concerns raised addressed and we are also looking to this body for more flexibility for charts to be able to authorize the -- charters to be able to authorize the schools -- ms. delauro: madam secretary, it would appear to me based on this report and other reports that the charter schools have enormous flexibility and there seems to be no one who was overseeing how that flexibility

translates into the use of federal dollars. you are also now proposing this increase of $60 million. we're looking at $500 million for entities that they're just going their way. let's be flexible. let's let them do what they want. they don't open. they don't -- they close. no one is concerned about any of the students. that's irresponsible in terms of your job with regard to oversight. and as it has to do with federal taxpayers' dollars, that is the charge of this subcommittee, to make sure that those moneys are being monitored and that you are accountable and not asleep at the wheel for what is happening with charter schools in this country. we've spent a lot of time and money on this effort. let me also talk to you about

k-12 education office. children, families count on your support to deal with the esea. i am disappointed to hear reports about your mismanagement of the office of elementary and secondary education. 2016, it would appear you merged oese and office of innovation and improvement. they had 328 employees. we're down to oese having just 260 employees, nearly 20% staff reduction. there are a lot of press reports out there -- and i quote -- describe long ways for answers to technical questions, lack of overall support, technical know-how, including when it comes to improving schools. do you see it is your responsibility to help states to implement esea? what is your message to states complaining that the lights are off at your department of

education? i might also add, i believe there was a contract awarded to look at morale in the department. secretary devos: chairman, let me comment on your previous question, and i would just say with regard to charter schools what we need is more charter schools and more options for children, not less, and states are proving time and again that there are wonderful options that are being developed for children of every learning type and interest and we need more of them, not less, and when you have experimentation you're always going to have schools that don't make it and that's exactly as what should happen. .

bringing in innovation and ingenuity into elementary and secondary education needs to happen no matter where the education is taking place. i'm very proud of the work of the department and the office of elementary and secondary education and the implementation of the every student succeeds act. we have approved all of the -- ms. delauro: madam secretary, let me just say you are taking public dollars to open charter schools. you are taking money away from the public schools which is where 90% of our children are.

and what you are doing to shortchange them -- i would just say, some of them, if you look at the data and the information, we're looking at the transferns to private entities, private corporate boards, they open, they close, they don't -- some of them don't even open. we're spending good money off bad. and in addition to that, you don't seem to think there is a necessity to oversee it, to claim any accountability for it. all's right with the world. it's not true. we're wasting money. thank you. my time is up. mr. cole: thank you, madam chair. if we may, i actually want to pick up on that because i want to ask you a little bit more about it. i am a big supporter of charter schools. we have had working with your office, frankly, substantial increases. if you would, why don't you

report on some of the successes that you have had in this area. viewpoint thank you, ranking member cole. thank you for the question to elaborate a little more on the value of charter schools to students today. we have -- we're seeing across the country -- i think with the exception of four states, charter schools have been able to grow up in 46 out of the 50 states. for students it has been a wonderful alternative. we know that there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of students who want to have an alternative to their assigned public school. charter schools often provide that opportunity. i have visited all times -- types of schools. it doesn't matter how a school is organized to me. what matters is whether the students going to that school find the right fit for themselves and are able to pursue their learning and education in a way that draws

the best out of them. we need to continue to build on that. that's why this budget proposes an expansion in the commitment of funding to charter schoolsle to continue to support high quality options for students. every state has high accountability provisions, varying accountability for provision force their charter schools, and do a good job, i think, of overseeing them at that level. we also do at the department of education, but the most important point of accountability are the parents who have chosen to send their child to whatever that charter school is. we're going to continue to see great results from students who are able to pursue their education in those settings. mr. cole: i appreciate your work in this regard. i visit schools, public and charter. i've got great public schools. i have great charter schools. i think you are right about the -- allowing parents to choose the best path and children

choose to paragraph tiss nate that decision. let me ask you, one of the things i was very pleased with in the budget was your proposals in career and technical education. i hear more from employers in my district about the need for folks with skills. frankly i meet so many children and young people that this is the way they want to go as opposed to traditional four-yearle college education. two areas i ask you to elaborate on that you proposed. the first is the $20 million stem competition proposal and how you see that incentivizing and building into career and technical. nd second, using pell grants for shorter term credentialed programs, how would that work? that's something i have always been supportive of but never found a way to finance because i think the demand would be just tremendous. i'm interested in your proposals in both those areas. viewpoint thanks for those questions. -- secretary devos: thanks for

those questions. this administration is supportive of other pathways to higher education. and career technical education is a very important piece of that education and an expanding area. i think one of the major hurdles is for us to perceptionually, i say us, speaking as a parent, parents often don't view career and technical opportunities as val did as -- because for decades we have been told only four-year college and university is the path to success. we've got to get beyond that because today we have over seven million jobs going unfilled that require education beyond high school, but not necessarily a four-year degree. to your question specifically about the $20 million investment in stem occupations and stem pathways, he we know that there are huge opportunities from a dreer perspective -- career perspective in the areas of math and science and

particularly in computer science. so that also couples with the proposal for short-term pell. short-term pell would allow for high quality certificate and certification programs to be accessed where today students receiving pell grants cannot access them. the question around funding for them, i think there's a little bit of presumption going on with the math that this would be an additive program. i suspect there are a great many pell grant eligible students who would opt to take one of these short-term pell opportunities in lieu of perhaps a longer term, more traditional route. so i think we would see a tradeoff for many of those options. and i think we need to take that step, i would argue, because there are so many great

opportunities for short-term. mr. cole: i want to work with you. i'm out of time. we'll pursue this another time. i would be very interested as you go forward any information you have back on the specifics or limited to certain skill sets. but i think it's a great idea, great place to start. thank you, yield back. ms. delauro: u.s. government wasted up to $1 billion on charter schools and still fails to adequately monitor grants. i yield to the gentlelady from new york, miss lowy. s. lowey: madam secretary, your agency recently conducted a report on 21st century community learning centers that concluded half of the students who participated in these after-school activities improved their math and reading grades. more than 68% improved their

homework and class participation, and three out of five improved their classroom behavior. last year, much to my surprise, you proposed the elimination of these after school programs. congress, under a republican majority, not only rejected the administration's cuts last year, but increased after school investments by $10 million. this year i'm puzzled, you are trying to cut it again. completely ignoring the strong evidence that parents support this program and, in fact, want more of it. could you tell me why does your budget yet again prioritize gutting this very important program and very popular program while your own study proves it's successful, and congress has demonstrated its strong bipartisan support for it?

secretary devos: thank you for that he question. the data that we have shows very differently. and the funds coming from the federal level do not really show significant impact on the students that it's meant to serve. the dollars flowing out of the federal program are not getting to programs that are working really well on behalf of the students. and there is not great participation rates. in fact, data from 2017 suggests that only 25% of elementary school program participants improved in their reading. only 19% of middlele and high school students improved and made gains in math. the proposal in the budget is to -- we had to make difficult decisions in the budget in our proposals. remember they are just proposals to you. but in doing so, we have really focused in on the things that we know are really yielding results and are getting to the students that are most vulnerable and need it most.

our proposal to eliminate 21st century learning funding doesn't speak to the program itself as much as it does to priorities. and also to the fact that the funding that we have been required to make through this 21st drentry -- century federal level programming does not show the results for the students. perhaps some of the state and local community level support does, and there is lots of philanthropic support around after school programs, but the funding from the department of education has not shown to be as effective. mrs. lowey: i'm not going to debate with you now. i'm glad that you said this is just a proposal. because you could be sure that many of us who serve on this committee and visit these local programs understand how effective and how important they are. i wish would you give some more thought to them. i wonder if you have visited many of them. i have been a supporter of

these for a long time. they are really lifesaving for many of the kids in the communities. another important, in fact for me it's been essential in many our schools -- in many of our schools, your budget proposes to roll back significant progress we have made in this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis to increase investments in childcare access means, parents and schools, it's called c-campus initiative. the only federal program that supports childcare access on campus for low-income parents working towards a higher education. year ago today the president advisor, ivanka trump, tweeted out her support for the c-campus program. i might say that ivanka trump is an expert in this, but her

father seems to respond fairably to her opinions. would you say that her tweet on this program signals the administration's support for c-campus? secretary devos: we had to make many difficult decisions in present presenting this budget. we have suggested the elimination or reduction of a number of programs. we have continued to stay focused on the ones that are really serving the most vulnerable students. title 9 -- title 1 funding has been held even. idea funding held even. english language learner funding held even. and those are funds that can be used also for children that we're talking about. not in the same way, granted, but definitely flexibility in how these funds are used. and again we have made choices in this budget. and are presenting our

proposals to you for consideration. mrs. lowey: i have two other questions about this if i might ask just quickly. maybe that's why you shouldn't be proposing a cut in your overall budget, because i wonder if you have seen these programs and see how critical they are to many of our communities. i wonder has the department of education studied the impact these cuts would have on the 5,000 parents who would lose access to on-campus childcare? i'd like to see the data to predict how this elimination would impact degree completion. my time is up, but i would hope you can respond to me. i have been to these schools. i have worked with these schools. i see the impact. i see the impact on the parents and on their kids. and this is such an invaluable program. i know we're going to reconsider it. i would hope you would educate yourself about this program as

well. thank you. thank you. s. delauro: congressman moolenaar. mr. moolenaar: thank you for being with us and i appreciate your overview and the work are you doing. a few things i wanted to just comment on. one is you have con-- done a great service today by clarifying that charter schools are public schools. and michigan law we call them public school academies. i was a former charter school administrator. i think one of the biggest misconceptions is that somehow charter schools are not public schools. i thank you for doing that today. it's something that i have seen tremendous things in michigan as part of detroit's comeback. some of the charter schools there that are giving parents and their families opportunities in an area where they aren't being served. breeshate -- i appreciate your add vow cancy.

i wonder if you would speak a bit more about some of the proposals you have on expanding options for school choice for families. and also if you would, explain to us who benefits from that? what's the type of student? who really benefits from that? secretary devos: thank you, congressman. i appreciate that question very much. the main proposal that this administration is advancing is called education freedom scholarships. it would create a federal tax credit that capped at $5 billion annually, that states could elect to participate in or not. if they did elect to participate, they would create programs or augment programs that they already have existing in their state, and would give access to families as they decide. most programs today are -- in states are means tested.

most students that today are benefiting from school choice, education freedom programs are students that are vulnerable, that have been stuck in schools that aren't working for them. their families can't move somewhere else like so many others can. they cannot buy a home in the suburbs where a good school is. and so it gives these children opportunities that they haven't had before. the community with the education freedom scholarships proposal and initiative is contributions to it are voluntary. nobody is coercing anyone to give. nobody is coercing any state to participate. and nobody is coercing any family to participate in the programs that the states create. what it does, what it will do is give a lot of children, hundreds of thousands of children across the country the opportunity to find an education fit that's going to be right for them. m moolenaar: one of the rerns

-- concerns raised earlier in school violence, threats to student safety, student achievement. if you are a parent in an area where you don't have a school district you feel your children are safe or they aren't meeting the needs academically, i would think this would be a big positive for them. secretary devos: it would. i would cite a program that florida recently enacted called the hope scholarships program for students who are bullied in their assigned school and/or have acts of violence committed against them, they are able to find a school that will work for them through this hope scholarships program. so states could elect to adopt something like this. and florida could elect to augment the program that they have. but giving, again, giving parents and students options to

find the right educational fit for each child i think is an imperative. mr. moolenaar: i want to follow-up, mr. cole was mentioning some of the ideas around the pell grants and some of the short-term pell. one of the things i'm experiencing in my district as i meet with owners of businesses, manufacturers, consistently they are saying we could hire more people. we just need to have people with the right skills. we would love to have some kind of a certificate training program. in my home area there is a company that -- it's a chemical company, they have a fast start program with a community college where it's an intensive short-term program, and then these are very good paying jobs. is this kind of what you are looking at for the short-term pell? secretary devos: indeed.

i think it's a great opportunity in communities and regions for employers to work with educators and really come up with proposals that are going to work for the employers' needs and that will -- that educators will be able to come in alongside of them and help create the kind of curriculum that is going to be absolutely perfect for the situation that that particular community or that region needs. and, yes, this is exactly what a short-term pell proposal could help to address. ms. delauro: congresswoman lee. ms. lee: thank you for having this hearing. welcome. you remember steve ban none, right? steve ban none indicated that the trump administration's -- bannon indicated that the trump administration's goal was to deconstruct the state. each cabinet official who comes to this committee presents a budget that reflect that

agenda. and your budget reflects what exactly steve ban none side, privatizing public education. getting rid of the public sector. turn it over to the corporations and the private sector to ensure the quality public education that our young people deserve. it's outrageous. your cuts here specifically target students of color. it's unbelievable, low-income students. i just have to say, madam secretary, you have zeroed out special olympics once again. i still can't understand why you would go after disabled children in your budget. you zero that out. it's appalling. i want to ask you a couple of things which reflects exactly what i just said. two years ago i wrote language, language into the bill about school desegregation. the language asked for a report from your department in coordination with the office of civil rights to submit to this committee detailing

recommendations on how to address the adverse impacts of segregation, including title 6 school monitors, to ensure that every student has the opportunity for an equal education. madam secretary, this letter came -- we wrote it june 7. we have called, we asked for this report. we tried to reach you over and over again. we have never received a response. i wonder where this report is. could you let us know when this report will be coming to the committee? it's about students of color. it's about school desegregation efforts. secretary devos: yes, i am aware of that request and that report. and i know it's near completion. i commit to you that we will get that to you as soon as feasible. ms. lee: this is almost two years. we have been waiting. these kids deserve and the school district deserve an answer from our secretary of education. we can't wait two years to get a report on school desegregation from you. it shouldn't be that hard to do. and the response has beenfall

in terms of trying to get some sense of timing and why this has been delayed. next, let me ask you about the school disciplinary practices that impact black and latino students. according to data released by the department of ed's office of civil rights, black k through 12 students and latino students are three times likely to be suspended or expelled as their white piers -- peers. the federal commission on school safety which you chair eliminated the 2014 school discipline guidance, which ensured that students of color are not subject to harsher disciplinary practice than their white peers. the guidance provided valuable resources for districts. it provided continuous, vigorous federal oversight and enforcement of our civil rights laws to make sure that students' civil rights are upheld. 75 civil rights groups wrote to

you in january expressing opposition to the rescission of this guidance. why in the world would you blame -- i understand what the rationale was, blaming school shootings of tragic gun violence that's taken place throughout the country on the civil rights protections for students of color. it doesn't make any sense why that was part of this rescission. can you explain that? secretary devos: congresswoman, no child should be treated or disciplined differently based on his or her race or color or national origin. if and when they are, our office for civil rights will act swiftly. has acted swiftly. children need to be treated as individuals. ms. lee: but they are no. that's why we have this order put in place. you rescinded that. secretary devos: again, any student that is treated or disciplined differently because of his or her color or race --

ms. lee: madam secretary, the department of civil rights, your own department of education, office of civil rights, indicated that students of color are suspended three times more than white students. we put into place some requirements that would begin to turn this around. you rescinded those requirements. what message -- secretary devos: no student should be treated or disciplined differently. ms. lee: addam -- madam secretary, they are treated differently. secretary devos: if they are, it's discrimination. ms. lee: why would you rescind the orders that would correct for this? secretary devos: the letter amounted to quotas. children are individuals. ms. lee: madam secretary, this doesn't involve quotas. this gave direction on how to correct this horrible problem

that we have throughout the country. you go to any community of color where you have schools that are trying to -- with minimal resources provide the best education they can, and you will see what is taking place. this does not amount to quotas. this amounted to providing those tools and guidance to make sure students' civil rights are protected. you rescinded that. secretary devos: every community needs to be able to handle their classrooms and discipline in the way that works for them. and if -- ms. lee: thank god we had brown vs. board of education. the federal government gave us a chance. we needed the federal government to provide that oversight of civil rights protections. ms. delauro: congresswoman herrera beutler. ms. herrera beutler: thank you, madam chair. thank you for being here.

i have some questions i am excited to hear answers. i do appreciate your willingness to come and to share. when i feel like -- there is a difference between asking a question and being tough. d being somewhat -- if i was sitting there and i was asking about what my boss' daughter thought about a proposal i was working on, it would be a little bit annoyed. if i was being asked how could you possibly be the secretary of education by -- then there is a long list, i just feel like -- i appreciate your willingness to do the job even though you are willing undermined, as you sit there in many different instances. vigorous disagreement. i think chairman cole shared he had disagreements. i would share some of the disagreements with my friends on the other side. it's all how you do it. i appreciate your willingness very much. first piece i want to ask about has to do with mental health.

teachers in my area, southwest washington, have shared with me they cemental health, the crisis of mental health, impacting individual students, classrooms, communities as a whole. this cuts across wealthy classrooms, urban districts, rural districts, poor and impoverished districts. this is no he respector of person. we're seeing a critical need to provide mental and behavioral health support. i say we the community. i mean all of us. this is the whole nation here. as in your role, how do you -- does the department have any emphasis on supporting schools and providing this support? secretary devos: thanks for that question, congresswoman. yes, the school safety commission made a number of recommendations, and among them that were specific to the department of education really had to do with improving the

school climate, social and emotional learning, mental health issues, and one of the proposals in our dugget is a new $1700 million school safety state -- $100 million school safety state grant program used by states and communities to implement a mental health program that is appropriate for their school, for their community. we know that this is an issue that is not unique to any one type of community. and we know that the climate of a school is so, so important. and having visited many schools in the past couple of years, you know when you enter the school if they are being intentional about creating a positive school climate. and we think that this is one important way that we can help states really help their local communities meet specific needs, specific to their

communities. ms. herrera beutler: thank you. i imagine it's going to look differently a solution. i think about some of my different schools, small, rural, more urban, increasingly suburban. the solutions might look different. seclusion and restraint. i was just reading an article in my area where parents talk about having their 6-year-old held down by the neck. while the classroom is cleared. that was the school solution to dealing with some of the behavioral issues. i know the department announced an initiative on this. particularly when it comes to providing care, education, safety for children with disabilities. can you tell me about the initiative. secretary devos: let me just begin by saying that every student needs to be able to go to school safe themselves. and other students to be safe in their setting as well.

we have initiated a -- an effort to really help school communities know an understand the law with regard to seclusion and restraints. and then to help ensure that they have the tools necessary to be able to carry out the law in a fashion that is in line with what the intent of it is. and we have also launched an investigation, this is a joint effort between our office for civil rights and our office of special education, and it is to go and look at some areas where the numbers that have been reported just seem a little bit out of line for some reason. and to really go and understand whether these are accurate reports. and if not, to help them know and understand, again, what their obligations are. we think that this is a really important initiative that we have undertaken without having

some kind of a mandate being told to do so. ms. herrera beutler: i yield back. hank u ms. delauro: congressman pocan. mr. pocan: thank you for being here. thank you so much, secretary, for being here today. i would like to get to three or four areas. if we can be concise i would appreciate it. follow-up on something ms. lee asked when she asked about suspensions you remeeted a few times race, religious, national origin. you never mentioned sexual orientation or gender identity. do you think it's all right for a school to discriminate on someone's sexual orientation or gender identity? secretary devos: we have laws that cover discriminatory efforts. our office for civil rights has continued to be very diligent in investigating any allegation of discrimination and will continue to do so. mr. pocan: is that a yes or no? i'm trying to get a yes or no. secretary devos: we follow the law --

mr. pocan: personally you don't have an opinion. leds me to the next question. you are giving money to charter schools that do discriminate, i would like to follow-up from the chairwoman, where $1 billion has been wasted over 1,000 schools. one out of every four charter schools have failed. you thought we should have more charter schools. when you have a 25% failure rate that's like being say if one of your car tires keeps going flat rather than replacing it, you are going to add more tires to a car. i don't know if that makes sense. my question would be what are you doing specifically to get that billion dollars back for taxpayers? you have in this budget a $60 million increase, 14% increase, for this program when we have one out of every four failing. how can you address those two aspects? secretary devos: let me refer again to the fact that the report covered information from a longer period. mr. pocan: i want to get a couple more subjects in. secretary devos: i will go to the fact, again, that we need more charter schools not fewer

of them. mr. pocan: what are we doing to get money back for taxpayers? secretary devos: we need traditional public schools. mr. pocan: because i'm trying to save time. what are we doing to get money back for taxpayers, the billion dollars that got wasted? secretary devos: i'm not sure that that's the ultimate conclusion, we'll certainly look into -- mr. pocan: are de-- we doing anything to look into that? we're not looking at that. i feel like i'm speaking a different language. soarry. the second part of that is you have an increase, yet we have a fail irrate. another area. i want to follow up on the thing ms. lee mentioned about the cuts to special olympics. do you know how many kids are going to be affected by that cut, madam secretary? secretary devos: mr. pocan, let me just say, again, we had to make some--decision was this budget. mr. pocan: this is a question, how many kids? secretary devos: i don't know the number of kids. mr. pocan: i'll answer it for

you. no problem. it's 272,000 kids. secretary devos: special olympics is an awesome organization. one that is well supported by the philanthropic sector as well. mr. pocan: there are a couple more parts to this. also we have cuts that can go in the special education grants to states from 3d million to $2.2 million, 26% cut. then also in this budget you have a 7.5 million cut to the national technical institute for the blind, $13 million cut for gall debt university, $5 million for federal program for print blooks for blind students. you recently had a federal judge rule against us on areas around special education. i have two nephews with autism. what is it that we have a problem with with children who are in special education? why are we cutting all these programs over and over within this budget? secretary devos: sir, we have continued to retain the funding levels for idea and held that

level. mr. pocan: i don't think i brought up idea. i believe i brought up special olympics, special education grants to states, the national institute for the blind. gallaudet university, federal program for printing books. if you can address those. secretary devos: i will address the broader question. mr. pocan: address the question i asked. that's even better. secretary devos: students with special needs, we have continued to hold that funding level -- that funding at a level amount and in the context of a budget proposal that is 10% reduction. mr. pocan: reclaim my time. are you not going to answer the question. one last one, maybe i'll do better than charter schools if i get this one covered by you. you've got a cut to the department that's a 12% agency cut, but you have a 15.6% increase in your executive salary appropriation. how can you justify that? secretary devos: the department funding includes a

building modernization piece. mr. pocan: i didn't ask about buildings. secretary devos: it's all part of that budget. mr. pocan: your 12% agency cut in light of 15.6% increase in executivalry. but $7 million security expense in the last year. secretary devos: we're also funding the next gen initiatives through federal student aid which requires a lot of investment now to save in the longer term. same thing for the building modernization piece. we're in the process of shrinking down the footprint here from three buildings to two. and all of that -- the expenditures, they come up front so that the savings can be realized in the longer term. mr. pocan: i'm sorry i wasn't more clear in my questions. thank you. ms. delauro: congressman harris. mr. harris: thank you very much. good to see you again, madam secretary. let me just -- again i'll ask

the secretaries when they come before here to explain the president's budget. you have to work within the current statute, right? and the current statute, we have to revert to the old caps, is that correct? secretary devos: yes, that's my understanding. mr. harris: congress hasn't raised the caps. why anyone up here on this side of this wall here would think that the blame is not on us for not having given you the money to -- to spend more. the bottom line is congress is failing again. that's the bottom line. i trust states and localities on education. there is a basic philosophy, people on this side of the wall, some of us are going to agree to disagree. some people think the federal government knows best how to educate people in summerset don't youy, i have one of the two poorest counties. i would like toe think my board of education and my local county and my state knows how to educate those students. someone up here, hate to say

it, are you part of the federal government, i don't think the federal government knows how best to educate those students. i agree with you. the turning over more things to the states is good. i also think that freedom is an american principle. i think freedom and choice are principles. and i think that charter schools embody that principle to a large extent. i think it was a great idea to highlight charter schools in your budget. especially the state facilities incentive grants because it always bothered me. i used to sit on the education committee in maryland mfment it used to bother me when at the wee talk about money for education. but not for a facility. it's hard to educate without a if acy. that's wait the education establishment -- without a facility. that's the way the education establishment does it. good for you to point that out. you have to explain-- give me the numbers again. the reading, science, and math where we stand in the nation. in the world. was it 24th in reading, 25th in

science? secretary devos: 24th in reading. 25th in science. and 40th in math. mr. harris: 40th this math. this is after 40 years of federal involvement. where did we stand in 1979 before the federal government wept in to help the states educate americans? if you could get back to me, look that up. secretary devos: they were much higher in the ranking. we have definitely continued to deteriorate. mr. harris: let's just step back at the big picture. 1979 we were better. federal government says, words of ronald reagan, the nine most dangerous -- however many words, i'm here from the federal government, i'm here to help. the federal government came in to help education and now we're much worse off. madam secretary, i want to thank you for thinking outside the box and how to reverse some of that. i do think some of the principles you have elouis kate

dated in the budget get -- elucidated in the budget get to that. i have gone and spoken to teachers and parents in my district who worried about the impact policies of the previous administration. worried a lot about the effect on school discipline and we're grateful this administration took a new look at those policies. i would like you to expand a little bit because i do think that one thing the federal government can do is expand the ability of states to be forward thinking in how they provide alternative education for parents and students who choose not to be in a conventional public school. explain the new approach you are going to take to encourage states to have these foundations that fund alternatives for parents. secretary devos: thanks, congressman, for those comments and the question. this administration continues to support alternative pathways

and acknowledges that more and more students are not traditional students. we're going to have regular interface with education and learning throughout our adult lives, particularly children born today. when you think about the fact that a kindergartner today can look forward to entering a work force where 85% of the jobs don't yet exist. we have to be supporting lifelong learning in a way that is meaningful. that goes to some of the recommendations we have made around the bell -- short-term pell program. around expanding career and technical education opportunities. preapprenticeship opportunities. there is a proposal in the budget for $60 million to go to plea apprentice -- preapprenticeship programs to help students explore these alternative pathways and give them a chance to earn while they are learning. we have a long way to go to

really support all of these different alternatives in a meaningful way when you compare it to how we have really waited the -- every -- weighted every ecase around the traditional higher education. we're proposing small steps in that direction. mr. harris: thank you very much. i yield back. ms. delauro: congresswoman frankel. ms. frankel: thank you, madam chair. thank you, madam secretary. you have a very nice disposition even though i don't agree with a lot -- some of these budget cuts. thank for being here. i am going to try to find some things we can agree about. let me start, i want to talk about sexual assault on college campuses. the department of justice and c.d.c. has repeatedly documented that roughly 20% to 25% of women have been sexually assaulted most commonly by men. i think also men, maybe about 16% rate.

something smaller than that. omen of college age are at the highest risk. first of all i want to ask you this. i am assuming that you agree that title 9 schools are required to respond to acts of sexual violence that impact students' access to education. would you agree with that? secretary devos: i would, congresswoman. let me just say i have said before and i wanted to emphasize again that one act of sexual violence is one too many. and one student that does not have due process is one too many. ms. frankel: if you could just to reclaim my time. we have time you can can talk about the perpetrators. i just -- do you agree that in practice many schools are failing to protect victims or hold the perpetrator accountable?

secretary devos: what i know is i have heard from students and i have heard from institutional representatives that the framework that they have had to operate under has not worked for too many students. which is precisely why we're in the process of negotiating rule making. ms. frankel: i want to find things we can can agree on. then we can disagree. i am assuming you would agree that people who are subjected to sexual assaults experience terror, helplessness, profound humiliation, and that sexual assaults are among the most harmful traumatic experiences. can we at least agree on that point? secretary devos: certainly. ms. frankel: great. i think we can all agree that the response of the survivors community is very important for their recovery. we can agree with that? that's good. i know we're on a good path here. and i think we would also agree

that authority figures in schools are in a position of great social authority. to help with recovery. we're doing well. i want to assume for a moment that this is a classroom. and that we're meeting on a regular basis. just take a look around. you saw the people who were here. let's assume, i'm not going to pick any person out, that one of the people in here could be a man or woman has been sexually assaulted by another one. that's in the room. this is a classroom. ould you agree that a victim of sexual assault should not be required to sit in a classroom with a perpetrator day after day?

can't we agree with that? secretary devos: i would agree with that. let me just say -- ms. frankel: wait a minute. secretary devos: respect your desire to go around this -- ms. frankel: reclaiming my time to ask the next question. we're doing well, we're agreeing. ow, here's my next question. let's say -- a woman or a man is sexually assaulted as a fran ernity house -- fraternity house, should that -- by another classmate, should those -- should the victim be required to sit in the classroom with the perpetrator of the sexual assault? secretary devos: congresswoman, appreciate and respect your desire to continue down this path of questioning. but you know that we're in the middle of the rule making on this. ms. frankel: could you answer my question.

secretary devos: inappropriate for me to continue to comment and answer the questions in the way that you are posing. ms. frankel: here's what i think. i think you agree with me that an assailant shouldn't be allowed to sit next to a victim. so i'm going to -- since i'm running out of time i guess i have to get to my final question which maybe we don't agree on. you have proposed changes that if a student is sexually ssaulted by a classmate off an off-campus frat, the school is not going to be libel to investigate. i don't understand that. if the frat is on the campus or the frat is across the street, it seems to me that the harm, the potential harm to the victim is the same. what that means is, for that victim, all that trauma, all that humiliation is all likelihood that that victim may not go to class, may drop out of school, and it seems to me

the university or the college would be subjecting themselves to a violation of title 9. think about it. secretary devos: thank you. ms. frankel: i yield back. ms. delauro: congresswoman busta. miss becausea: thank you for joining us today. what i'd like to talk about is the borrower. after losing your latest court battle to implement the borrowers defense rule, your department issued guidance that no school could force a student into mandatory arbitration over dispute involving federal student loans. i think that's good. yet your guidance stresses that schools could continue to use mandatory arbitration as long as the dispute did not involve a federal student loan. is that correct?

correct. these enrollment contracts where schools hide these mandatory arbitration clauses in fine print, which is standard, students have to enter these contracts in order to attend school. they don't have a choice. so i'm wondering, madam secretary, why this -- you would continue to encourage schools to take away students' rights as a condition of going to school? secretary devos: congresswoman, let me just speak broadly on the question and the issue. we did not agree with the obama administration's approach to this. i'm certainly very aware of the court decision, and we're in the process of implementing that. while at the same time we're continuing to work on revising the rules so that it is one that we think is more fair to both students and taxpayers ultimately. our partial relief formula is meant to be respectful of

taxpayers. there is no student that should e able to make a claim for borrower defense if they have not truly been deprouded or if they are gainfully employed. we're going to continue to work on this rule. and implement as per the udge's orders. mrs. bustos: i'm wondering if you can talk about what efforts your department is taking to make sure schools, not including arbitration clauses related to the student loans, as part of their enrollment. if you can -- is your staff monitoring compliance? secretary devos: we're following the judge's decision in implementing, and at the same time continuing to work on he revising the rules. that process continues to be ongoing. mrs. bustos: i'm going to drill down farther. if you asked the creditors to ensure schools are in compliance? secretary devos: we're

following the 2016 rule. and at the same time continuing to work on revising the rule. mrs. bustos: ok. you are rewriting the rules, correct? secretary devos: we're. mrs. bustos: will your rewrite include the existing ban of forced arbitration for federal student loan disputes? secretary devos: that's all part of the consideration. it would be premature to actually comment on the rule before it's actually released for comment. mrs. bustos: what's your time line on this? secretary devos: very soon. within the next few months. mrs. bustos: would you -- probably can predict your answer, but would you be able to commit to act in the best interest of students and uphold the ban on forced arbitration? secretary devos: i commit to acting in the best interest of students. do i that every day in my job. and will continue to commit to working on this rule so that it

is one that that we can be very supportive of and equally fair to students and to taxpayers. mrs. bustos: since i got a minute left. going to address teacher shortage. from the state of illinois, we've got a severe teacher shortage issue. about 1,000 positions that can't be filled. number one, it's in chicago. which is outside my congressional district, but the other two are in the cities of peoria and rockford which are in my district. this is an issue i have done round tables on this and have learned from teachers they feel undervalued, underpaid, overworked. your budget cuts a critical department of education program that school districts can use to improve teacher recruitment and retention. and i know that you stated that you consider teacher hiring a local issue. but you have also stated that you wanted to help facilitate

the sharing of best practices to bring more teachers into schools. i'm wondering if you can elaborate on some of the best practices and share your next steps to help states and districts with teacher shortages. i'll just leave it at that since we have a few seconds left. secretary devos: thanks. i, too, have met with and talked with many teachers and know that way too many of them do feel undervalued and underappreciated. that's why our budget has proposed to really give teachers an opportunity to develop themselves in a way that works for them through a teacher voucher that they can use for their own professional development. one of the things i have heard consistently is that they have been basically told what development to take, when and where. whether it's relevant to their particular subject area or their particular development need. and so we think that this is a really good way to begin to get at that and to show the kind of

honor and respect that they should have. and to elevate their profession. we also think that through the investment in mentorship and residency opportunities, that teachers will -- really great teachers will find a way to continue to develop their own career path and not have to leave the classroom and too many of them have to do today in order to continue to develop their own career path, they go into administration, and then they are no longer in the classroom. it doesn't need to be an either-or. it can be a both-and. they can continue to be in the class room an develop a career path if they have the opportunity to teach as teachers to teach the teachers. and the mentorship and residency program will allow that kind of opportunity to develop well. mrs. bustos: i yield back. thank you. ms. delauro: congresswoman watson coleman. mrs. watson coleman: thank you,

madam chairman. chiang you, madam secretary, for being here. number one, i want to follow up on a question that congresswoman lee asked specifically, what is your rationale for having rolled back the guidance on dealing with discrimination and civil rights issues in the schools? you mentioned something about quotas. i have read the rule. it has nothing to do with with quotas. what is your rationale for ving taken that guidance and repealed it? secretary devos: congresswoman, thank you for that question. again, i will repeat again that i think we share the same goals that every student is treated as the individuals that they are. mrs. watson coleman: i only want to understand one thing. what is the rationale for repealing a guidance with

regard to how you address discrimination, disparate impact, and all those things, on an -- in a school environment? secretary devos: discrimination is wrong. and it will be pursued. mrs. watson coleman: we agree with that. just tell me if you don't mind why you felt it was ok to eliminate a guidance that was to help understand how the process is. how is that helpful? secretary devos: actually, the guidance we heard from many, many different quarters that the guidance was actually harming schools and individuals. mrs. watson coleman: thank you. reclaiming my time. i want to ask you -- secretary devos: can can i finish the question? mrs. watson coleman: every time you talk about your findings, your research, whatever, i would love to see that research. i honest to god would love to see what you rely upon.

as you are making -- answering some of these questions about what to do. let me tell you something i really support very much in your budget. and that is to expand access to pell grants for apprenticeship programs, technical programs. i agree with you the root is not always a four ---route is not always a four-year college education. i want to know that in advance of doing that, since that is an innovation on your part, what are you going to have in place to ensure that something like a trump university that had absolutely no academic relevance is not someone -- not an organization that benefits from this new approach? secretary devos: congresswoman, this proposal is one that we would like to work with congress to ensure the appropriate boundaries or guardrails are put into place. i think it is an important opportunity. mrs. watson coleman: i think congress would very much want to know what your parameters were and exhibit system will

look like. i -- sbibblet -- accountability system would look like. i have a lot of questions. i have a question with regard to your department's decision not to any longer work with state officials over the redress of victims of for-profit colleges. this particular question was prompted by a letter that my attorney general in the state of new jersey sent to your department several months ago asking why suddenly you are not collaborating with them and sharing information with them that they could address the eligibility of students who -- >> we're going to leave this program but a he reminder you can watch all of our programs online at c-span.org. the house is about to gavel in. they'll be debating and voting on whether override president trump's veto of a resolution that would terminate his national emergency declaration

for the southern border. both the house and senate would need a 2/3 majority to override the veto. take you live now to the floor of the house here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend to enrequest lee, community of hope a.m.e. chump -- tony lee, community of hope a.m.e. church. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, we come to you with a spirit of humility and gratitude. we come with the reality zage --