    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                            EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND
                               PRIORITIES OF THE
                          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                                   AND LABOR
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 10, 2019

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. 116-17

                                   ----------

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Available via the World Wide Web: www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
                  Committee address: https://edlabor.house.gov

        EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

                                   EDUCATION

                           EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND
                               PRIORITIES OF THE
                          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                                   AND LABOR
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 10, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-17

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Available via the World Wide Web: www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
                  Committee address: https://edlabor.house.gov

                               ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     36-592               WASHINGTON : 2020

                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

                 ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

    Susan A. Davis, California           Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Ranking Member
    Joe Courtney, Connecticut            David P. Roe, Tennessee
    Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio                Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Tim Walberg, Michigan
      Northern Mariana Islands           Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
    Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bradley Byrne, Alabama
    Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon             Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
    Mark Takano, California              Elise M. Stefanik, New York
    Alma S. Adams, North Carolina        Rick W. Allen, Georgia
    Mark DeSaulnier, California          Francis Rooney, Florida
    Donald Norcross, New Jersey          Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
    Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Jim Banks, Indiana
    Joseph D. Morelle, New York          Mark Walker, North Carolina
    Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             James Comer, Kentucky
    Josh Harder, California              Ben Cline, Virginia
    Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Russ Fulcher, Idaho
    Kim Schrier, Washington              Van Taylor, Texas
    Lauren Underwood, Illinois           Steve Watkins, Kansas
    Jahana Hayes, Connecticut            Ron Wright, Texas
    Donna E. Shalala, Florida            Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
    Andy Levin, Michigan*                William R. Timmons, IV, South
    Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                    Carolina
    David J. Trone, Maryland             Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
    Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
    Susie Lee, Nevada
    Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
    Joaquin Castro, Texas
    * Vice-Chair

                       Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
                     Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on April 10, 2019...................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Chairman, Committee on
          Education and Labor........................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Ranking Member, Committee on Education
          and Labor..................................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     7

    Statement of Witnesses:
        DeVos, Hon. Betsy, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education...     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    12

    Additional Submissions:
        Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Connecticut:
            Memo dated December 27, 2017 from Bradfield, Mr. Patrick
              A., Director, Federal Student Aid Acquisitions, U.S.
              Department of Education................................    99
            Link: Reissuance of Final Audit Report...................   101
        Chairwoman Foxx:
            A Good Investment: The Updated Productivity of Public
              Charter Schools in Eight U.S. Cities...................   102
        Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Ohio:
            Link.....................................................   133
            Evaluation of the Alabama Accountability Act: Academic
              Achievement Test Outcomes of Scholarship Recipients
              2016-2017..............................................   134
        Hayes, Hon. Jahana, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Connecticut:
            Letter dated July 16, 2018 from Botel, Mr. Jason,
              Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of
              Elementary and Secondary Education.....................   181
            Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
              Control Document.......................................   194
            Email from Hilsey, Shaina................................   197
            Email from Rinkus, Mr. Christopher.......................   198
            Email from Briggs, Ashley................................   199
            Email from Botel, Mr. Jason..............................   200
            Email from Miller, Meredith..............................   201
        Levin, Hon. Andy, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Michigan:
            Email from Navient.......................................   202
            Email from Federal Student Aid...........................   204
            Email from the Department of Education...................   206
        McBath, Hon. Lucy, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Georgia:
            United States District Court Northern District of Ohio
              Eastern Division.......................................   209
        Morelle, Hon. Joseph D., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of New York:
            Joint Status Report......................................   231
            Addendum to Temporary Provisional Program Participation
              Agreements (TPPPAs) for Institutions Owned by Dream
              Center Educational Holdings, LLC (DCEH)................   234
        Questions submitted for the record by:
            Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from
              the State of North Carolina............................   258
            Castro, Hon. Joaquin, a Representative in Congress from
              the State of Texas.....................................   267
            DeSaulnier, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from
              the State of California................................   260
            Fulcher, Hon. Russ, a Representative in Congress from the
              State of Idaho.........................................   269
            Ms. Fudge................................................   253
            Harder, Hon. Josh, a Representative in Congress from the
              State of California....................................   262
            Lee, Hon. Susie, a Representative in Congress from the
              State of Nevada........................................   264
            Ms. McBath...............................................   263
            Mr. Morelle..............................................   261
            Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Representative in
              Congress from Northern Mariana Islands.................   254
            Chairman Scott...........................................   246
            Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the
              State of California....................................   257
            Timmons, IV, Hon. William R., a Representative in
              Congress from the State of South Carolina..............   270
            Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
              the State of Pennsylvania..............................   268
            Trahan, Hon. Lori, a Representative in Congress from the
              State of Massachusetts.................................   264
            Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., a Representative in Congress
              from the State of Florida..............................   254
            Wright, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the
              State of Texas.........................................   270
        Secretary DeVos's response to questions submitted for the
          record.....................................................   272

                     EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES

                      OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, April 10, 2019,

                           House of Representatives,

                       Committee on Education and Labor,

                                Washington, DC.

                                  ----------

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m., in
    room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Robert C.
    ``Bobby'' Scott (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Scott, Davis, Grijalva, Courtney,
    Fudge, Sablan, Wilson, Bonamici, Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier,
    Norcross, Jayapal, Morelle, Wild, Harder, McBath, Schrier,
    Underwood, Hayes, Shalala, Levin, Omar, Trone, Stevens, Lee,
    Trahan, Castro, Foxx, Roe, Thompson, Walberg, Guthrie, Byrne,
    Grothman, Stefanik, Allen, Smucker, Banks, Walker, Comer,
    Cline, Fulcher, Taylor, Watkins, Wright, Meuser, Timmons, and
    Johnson.
        Staff present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Nekea Brown,
    Deputy Clerk; Ilana Brunner, General Counsel Health and Labor;
    Jacque Chevalier Mosley, Director of Education Policy; Mishawn
    Freeman, Staff Assistant; Christian Haines, General Counsel
    Education; Ariel Jona, Staff Assistant; Kimberly Knackstedt,
    Disability and Education Policy Advisor; Stephanie Lalle,
    Deputy Communications Director; Andre Lindsay, Staff Assistant;
    Max Moore, Office Aid; ; Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director;
    Benjamin Sinoff, Director of Education Oversight; Lakeisha
    Steele, Professional Staff; Katherine Valle, Senior Education
    Policy Advisor; Loredana Valtierra, Education Policy Fellow;
    Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of Information Technology;
    Claire Viall, Professional Staff; Adrienne Rolie Webb,
    Education Policy Fellow; Cyrus Artz, Minority Parliamentarian,
    Marty Boughton, Minority Press Secretary; Courtney Butcher,
    Minority Director of Coalitions and Members Services; Bridget
    Handy, Minority Legislative Assistant; Blake Johnson, Minority
    Staff Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Minority Director of Education
    and Human Resources Policy; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director
    of Operations; Kelley McNabb, Minority Communications Director;
    Jake Middlebrooks, Minority Professional Staff Member; Brandon
    Renz, Minority Staff Director; Alex Ricci, Minority
    Professional Staff Member; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Chief
    Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy; Meredith
    Schellin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Advisor;
    and Brad Thomas, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor.
        Chairman SCOTT. The Committee on Education and Labor will
    come to order. I want to welcome everyone, and note that a
    quorum is present.
        The committee is meeting today to examine the policies and
    priorities of the United States Department of Education.
    Pursuant to rule 7c, opening statements are limited to the
    Chair and Ranking Member. This allows us to hear from our
    witness sooner and provides all members with adequate time to
    ask questions.
        I will now recognize myself for the purpose of making an
    opening statement.
        Madam Secretary, I want to begin by expressing the
    committee's appreciation for your time today. The House rules
    require that each member is allotted a full 5 minutes for
    questioning, and we are grateful that you have allocated
    sufficient time to uphold that precedent.
        The Department of Education bears the tremendous
    responsibility of implementing and enforcing Federal laws
    covering roughly 13,000 school districts and more than 50
    million public school students. All of these students deserve
    an equitable high-quality public education. That is their
    right, and it is the responsibility of the Department of
    Education as well as Congress in partnering with States and
    localities to make it a reality.
        Unfortunately, under the President's fiscal 2020 budget, it
    would be nearly impossible to meet that challenge. At a time
    when access to education is synonymous with access to
    opportunity, the President's budget proposes a 12.5 percent cut
    to the Department of Education.
        These cuts are spread across vital programs that serve
    communities across the country. The budget, for example,
    weakens Title I-A, support for schools in low-income areas, it
    eliminates funding for after-school programs, and seeks a 40
    percent cut in adult education.
        The President's proposed cuts to higher education funding
    are particularly deep. Despite the rising cost of college and
    increasing burden of student debt, the budget seeks to slash
    over $200 billion over 10 years, from student loan assistance.
    These cuts will deny countless students the personal growth and
    economic mobility that comes with a college degree.
        The budget is more than numbers on a spreadsheet. There is
    a clear message in those numbers, and regrettably this is the
    same message the Department has been sending students, parents,
    and educators over the past 2 years.
        Today's hearing is an opportunity to discuss the
    Department's actions and the justification for those actions
    under the present leadership.
        This hearing is especially important given the Department's
    lack of transparency. The committee's ability to fulfill its
    oversight function, relies on a healthy working relationship
    with the Department.
        When we ask reasonable questions, we expect responsive and
    timely answers. But on multiple occasions across several
    issues, the Department has refused to answer reasonable
    questions about its work and failed to provide adequate fact-
    based justifications for its actions.
        For example, starting in September 2017 we repeatedly
    raised questions about the Department's failure to demonstrate
    effective oversight regarding the implementation of the Every
    Student Succeeds Act.
        Specifically, the Department has approved State education
    plans that violate the law's requirements for schools to
    measure and address achievement gaps using subgroup
    performance. We have not yet received a substantial response to
    address these concerns.
        In November 2017, we repeatedly asked the Department to
    answer questions about its refusal to faithfully implement the
    Borrower Defense Rule which has left more than 100,000
    defrauded students waiting to restart their lives. We have not
    received substantive responses to those questions.
        March 2018, we asked the Department to justify its decision
    to rescind the Obama era guidance addressing racial disparities
    in school discipline. Research has consistently shown that
    black students, boys, and students with disabilities face
    harsher discipline for similar offenses as their white peers.
    Instead of working with schools to correct these disparities,
    the Department used the tragic school shooting in Parkland,
    Florida as a basis to undermine students' civil rights
    protections.
        By linking disparities in school discipline with school
    shootings, the Department is sending a terrible message that
    schools are safer when they discriminate against students of
    color. The Department has failed to adequately justify its
    rescission of this guidance.
        In July 2018, we asked the Department to produce evidence
    supporting its effort to delay the equity in the IDEA Rule.
    This rule helps school districts address racial disparities and
    special education. We have not received a substantive response.
        In fact, that lack of evidence recently led a U.S. District
    Court to rule that the delay was arbitrary and capricious and
    therefore unlawful.
        In August 2018, we asked the Department to clarify its
    position on the use of taxpayer funds to arm teachers, which
    has left a dangerous opening for school districts to use
    Federal education funding to put firearms in classrooms. We
    have not received a substantive explanation of that position.
        Since November 2018, we have been asking the Department to
    justify its reinstatement of the Accrediting Council for
    Independent Colleges and Schools, a troubled accreditor for
    for-profit colleges with a history of propping up low-quality
    schools.
        The Department reinstated ACICS despite its own analysis
    that the accreditor had not met two of the required conditions
    for reinstatement. Two weeks after the reinstatement, another
    school accredited by ACICS abruptly closed, stranding nearly
    20,000 students. We have not received an adequate response to
    those questions.
        And in February 2019, we sent multiple inquiries to the
    Department about the apparently inappropriate effort by the
    deputy secretary to halt or influence the Office of the
    Inspector General in its investigation into the reinstatement
    of ACICS. This apparent intervention undermines the Inspector
    General's critical role as an independent watchdog. We have not
    received a substantive response to that inquiry.
        And over the past 3 months we have asked the Department
    about its abandoned attempt to replace the acting Inspector
    General in the Department with the Department's own acting
    general counsel, a nearly unprecedented attempt to put a senior
    Department official in the position to police decisions he was
    personally involved in making. Once again, we haven't received
    a response to that question.
        It is the--only the partial list of actions that your
    Department has failed to justify and questions it has refused
    to answer. Behind each of these unjustified actions and
    unanswered questions, there are students, parents, educators,
    and taxpayers across the country who are waiting for answers,
    and only can speculate as to the reason behind these actions.
        They deserve to know why the Department is not acting in
    the best interest of faithfully executing the law or taking
    seriously the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure
    that all Americans have access to quality education, from
    childcare to early learning, to college and career.
        So, Madam Secretary, I look forward to the opportunity to
    discuss the important issues under your Department which are so
    vital to our Nation's future.
        And now I yield to the ranking member for the purpose of an
    opening statement.
        [The statement of Chairman Scott follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Chairman,
                        Committee on Education and Labor

        Madam Secretary, I want to begin by expressing the Committee's
    appreciation for your time today. The House rules require that each
    Member is allotted a full 5 minutes for questioning and we are grateful
    that you've allocated sufficient time to uphold that precedent.
        The Department of Education bears the tremendous responsibility of
    implementing and enforcing Federal laws covering roughly 13,000 school
    districts and more than 50 million public school students. All of these
    students deserve an equitable, high-quality public education. That's
    their right, and it's the responsibility of the Department of Education
    as well as Congress in partnering with States and localities, to make
    it a reality.
        Unfortunately, under the President's Fiscal Year budget, it would
    be nearly impossible to meet that challenge. At a time when access to
    education is synonymous with access to opportunity, the President's
    budget proposes a 12.5 percent cut to the Department of Education.
    These cuts are spread across vital programs that serve communities
    across the country. The budget, for example, weakens Title I-A support
    for schools in low-income areas, eliminates funding for afterschool
    programs, and seeks a 40 percent cut to adult education.
        The President's proposed cuts to higher education funding are
    particularly deep. Despite the rising cost of college and increasing
    burden of student debt, the budget seeks to slash over $200 billion
    over 10 years from student loan assistance. These cuts will deny
    countless students the personal growth and economic mobility that comes
    with a college degree.
        The budget is more than numbers on a spreadsheet. There's a clear
    message in those numbers and, regrettably, this is the same message the
    Department has been sending students, parents, and educators over the
    past 2 years.
        Today's hearing is an opportunity to discuss the Department's
    actions and the justification for those actions under the present
    leadership.
        This hearing is especially important given the Department's lack of
    transparency. The Committee's ability to fulfill its oversight function
    relies on a healthy working relationship with the Department. When we
    ask reasonable questions, we expect responsive and timely answers. But
    on multiple occasions, across several issues, the Department has
    refused to answer reasonable questions about its work and failed to
    provide adequate, fact-based justifications for its actions.
        For example...
        Starting in September 2017, we repeatedly raised questions about
    the Department's failure to demonstrate effective oversight regarding
    the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Specifically, the
    Department has approved State education plans that violate the law's
    requirements for schools to measure and address achievement gaps using
    subgroup performance. We have not yet received a substantive response
    to address these concerns.
        In November 2017, we repeatedly asked the Department to answer
    questions about its refusal to faithfully implement the Borrowers
    Defense rule, which has left more than 100,000 defrauded students
    waiting to restart their lives. We have not received substantive
    responses to those questions.
        In March 2018, we asked the Department to justify its decision to
    rescind the Obama-era guidance addressing racial disparities in school
    discipline. Research has consistently shown that Black students, boys,
    and students with disabilities face harsher discipline for similar
    offenses as their white peers.
        Instead of working with schools to correct these disparities, the
    Department used the tragic school shooting in Parkland, Florida, as a
    basis to undermine students' civil rights protections. By linking
    disparities in school discipline with school shootings, the Department
    has sent a terrible message that schools are safer when they
    discriminate against students of color. The Department has failed to
    adequately justify the rescission of this guidance.
        In July 2018, we asked the Department to produce evidence
    supporting its effort to delay the Equity in the I-D-E-A rule. The rule
    helps schools address racial disparities in special education.
        We have not received a substantive response. In fact, that lack of
    evidence recently led a U.S. district court to rule that the delay was
    arbitrary and capricious, and therefore unlawful.
        In August 2018, we asked the Department to clarify its position on
    the use of taxpayer money to arm teachers, which has left a dangerous
    opening for school districts to use Federal education funding to put
    firearms in classrooms. We have not received a substantive explanation
    of its position.
        Since November 2018, we been asking the Department to justify its
    reinstatement of the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and
    Schools a troubled accreditor of for-profit colleges with a history of
    propping up low-quality schools. The Department reinstated A-C-I-C-S
    despite its own analysis that the accreditor had not met two of the
    required conditions for reinstatement. Two weeks after the
    reinstatement, another school accredited by A-C-I-C-S abruptly closed,
    stranding nearly 20,000 students. We have not received an adequate
    response to those questions.
        In February 2019, we sent multiple inquiries to the Department
    about the apparently inappropriate effort by the Deputy Secretary to
    halt or influence an Office of the Inspector General investigation into
    the reinstatement of A-C-I-C-S. This apparent intervention undermines
    the Inspector General's critical role as an independent watchdog. We
    have not received a substantive response to that inquiry.
        And over the past 3 months, we have asked the Department about its
    abandoned attempt to replace the acting Inspector General in the
    Department with the Department's own acting general counsel, a nearly
    unprecedented attempt to put a senior Department official in a position
    to police decisions he was personally involved in making. Once again,
    we have not received a response to that question.
        This is only a partial list of the actions your Department has
    failed to justify and the questions it has refused to answer. Behind
    each of these unjustified actions and unanswered questions, there are
    students, parents, educators, and taxpayers across the country who are
    waiting for answers and only can speculate as to the reason behind the
    actions.
        They deserve to know why the Department is not acting in their best
    interests, faithfully executing the law, or taking seriously the
    Federal Government's responsibility to ensure all Americans have access
    to a quality education, from child care and early learning to college
    and career.
        Madam Secretary, I look forward to this opportunity to discuss the
    important issues under your Department, which are so vital to our
    Nation's future.
        Now, I will yield to the Ranking Member for the purpose of an
    opening statement.
                                     ______

        Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. And thank
    you, Madam Secretary, for being here. Today's hearing will
    provide members of the committee with a chance to hear about
    the Department's priorities, and what Department leadership is
    doing to provide greater opportunities to students at every
    level of education.
        The committee Republicans are deeply committed to ensuring
    that all programs under the Department's jurisdiction are
    implemented effectively and help grantees and stakeholders
    provide students a high-quality, effective education. This has
    been an ongoing effort that I know Secretary DeVos is an equal
    partner in.
        During the Obama Administration, the Department handed down
    a slew of regulations and Federal red tape that hampered
    programs. Since assuming office in 2017, Secretary DeVos has
    worked to reduce the regulatory burden on State and local
    leaders and has also worked to help provide flexibility where
    she can to help connect students with in-demand jobs.
        Everyone here knows that we have a national skills gap
    problem. Currently there are more than 7 million open jobs
    across the country and the number of jobs they can see keeps
    growing. These jobs are going unfilled because not enough
    workers have the necessary skills to fill them.
        There is a pervasive stigma around skills-based education,
    and my colleague can know it is long been a priority of mine to
    end this misconception.
        A baccalaureate degree is not the only way to a good-paying
    job. There are a multitude of pathways to lifelong success and
    we need to work more to make skills-based education a viable
    and valuable path for people again.
        So I am eager to hear about the Department's ongoing
    implementation of the Strengthening Career in Technical
    Education for the 21st Century Act. This committee's bipartisan
    legislation to reform career and technical education which the
    President has signed into law last July, the law will empower
    State and local leaders to engage with employers and connect
    more Americans with on-the-job learning opportunities, like
    apprenticeships.
        I am also interested to hear about the Department's
    continued efforts to expand school choice for students,
    families, and teachers. Every student is different, and
    families should be empowered to choose the learning environment
    that best suits their child's strengths.
        Many Republicans will always believe that a one-size-fits-
    all approach does more harm than good, and that is true most of
    all of education. Students deserve an education that challenges
    them to reach higher and inspires them to be lifelong learners.
        Students deserve choices, and they have the best chance at
    lifelong success, if they have access to expanded opportunities
    at every level of education. congressional oversight of the
    executive branch is an important power of Congress, it is both
    necessary and appropriate to ensure that laws are properly
    implemented and taxpayer dollars are responsibly spent.
        It behooves us to be thorough and exacting in our review of
    the Department's activities and budget request, but make no
    mistake thorough and exacting does not mean prejudiced and
    pernicious.
        Secretary DeVos, you have been unwavering in the dedication
    to your job in the midst of strong headwinds. I want to assure
    you that Committee Republicans recognize the work you are doing
    to connect students with effective education. We are grateful
    for your efforts, and you can expect this side of the dais to
    ask questions that shed light on the progress the Department
    has made since you were confirmed as Secretary, in your
    priorities moving forward.
        Students of all ages and at every level of education should
    be empowered to pursue whatever education pathway will equip
    them with the unique skills they need to thrive in the
    workplace.
        I thank Secretary DeVos again for being here today. I look
    forward to our discussion about how we can bring greater
    opportunities within reach for students across the country.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement of Mrs. Foxx follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Ranking Member, Committee on
                              Education and Labor

        Thank you for yielding.
        Thank you, Secretary DeVos, for being here today. Today's hearing
    will provide Members of the Committee with a chance to hear about the
    Department's priorities and what Department leadership is doing to
    provide greater opportunities to students at every level of education.
        Committee Republicans are deeply committed to ensuring that all
    programs under the Department's jurisdiction are implemented
    effectively and help grantees and stakeholders provide students a high-
    quality, effective education. This has been an ongoing effort that I
    know Secretary DeVos is an equal partner in. During the Obama
    Administration, the Department handed down a slew of regulations and
    Federal red tape that hampered programs. Since assuming office in 2017,
    Secretary DeVos has worked to reduce the regulatory burden on State and
    local leaders and has also worked to help provide flexibility where she
    can to help connect students with in-demand jobs.
        Everyone here knows that we have a national skills gap problem.
    Currently, there are more than 7 million open jobs across the country,
    and the number of job vacancies keeps growing. These jobs are going
    unfilled because not enough workers have the necessary skills to fill
    them.
        There's a pervasive stigma around skills-based education, and my
    colleagues know it's long been a priority of mine to end this
    misconception. A baccalaureate degree is not the only way to a good-
    paying job. There are a multitude of pathways to lifelong success, and
    we need to work to make skills-based education a viable and valuable
    path for people again.
        So, I am eager to hear about the Department's ongoing
    implementation of the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for
    the 21st Century Act, this committee's bipartisan legislation to reform
    career and technical education, which the President signed into law
    last July. The law will empower State and local leaders to engage with
    employers and connect more Americans with on-the-job learning
    opportunities, like apprenticeships.
        I'm also interested to hear about the Department's continued
    efforts to expand school choice for students, families, and teachers.
    Every student is different, and families should be empowered to choose
    the learning environment that best suits their child's strengths.
    Committee Republicans will always believe that a one-size-fits-all
    approach does more harm than good, and that's true most of all in
    education.
        Students deserve an education that challenges them to reach higher
    and inspires them to be lifelong learners. Students deserve choices,
    and they have the best chance at lifelong success if they have access
    to expanded opportunities at every level of education. congressional
    oversight of the Executive branch is an important power of Congress.
    It's both necessary and appropriate to ensure that laws are properly
    implemented and taxpayer dollars are responsibly spent. It behooves us
    to be thorough and exacting in our review of the Department's
    activities and budget request. But make no mistake, ``thorough and
    exacting'' does not mean prejudiced and pernicious.
        Secretary DeVos, you have been unwavering in your dedication to
    your job in the midst of strong headwinds. I want to assure you that
    Committee Republicans recognize the work you are doing to connect
    students with effective education.
        We're grateful for your efforts, and you can expect this side of
    the dais to ask questions that shed light on the progress the
    Department has made since you were confirmed as Secretary and your
    priorities moving forward.
        Students of all ages and at every level of education should be
    empowered to pursue whatever education pathway will equip them with the
    unique skills they need to thrive in the work force. I thank Secretary
    DeVos again for being here today, and I look forward to our discussion
    about how we can bring greater opportunities within reach for students
    across the country.
                                     ______

        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. I will now introduce our
    witness. The Honorable Betsy DeVos serves as the eleventh U.S.
    Secretary of Education. She was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on
    February 7, 2017. She has been involved in education policy for
    nearly three decades, and an advocate for children and a voice
    for parents.
        For 15 years she has served as an in-school mentor for at-
    risk children in the Grand Rapids public school system. Prior
    to her confirmation she served as Chair of the Windquest Group,
    an enterprise and investment management firm.
        In addition to her leadership in the education arena, she
    has served on boards of numerous national and local charitable
    and civic organizations, including the Kennedy Center for the
    Performing Arts, Kids Hope USA, ArtPrize, Mars Hill Bible
    Church, and Kendall College of Art and Design.
        She is a graduate of Calvin College in Grand Rapids,
    Michigan, where she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree, and she
    and her husband, Dick, have four children and seven
    grandchildren.
        I am pleased to recognize our colleague from Michigan, Mr.
    Walberg, who is a close friend of the Secretary, and has asked
    to say a few words.
        Mr. WALBERG. I thank the Chairman for that. And thank you
    for holding this hearing, inviting the Secretary to be with us.
    And indeed, we have made opening statements about education and
    our perception of it and, Madam Secretary, your predecessor, we
    certainly, from this side of the aisle, asked tough questions
    of the Secretary. And so that is to be expected.
        But I appreciate the opportunity to welcome you here as a
    fellow Michigander. But also of having had a long-time
    experience with you and your family, your commitment in
    education, to have had the privilege of serving on an
    educational task force that you led and to see that words
    weren't just words but were backed up significantly with
    actions relative to quality education across the board. Whether
    it is public, private, parochial, any approach to education
    that allowed parents the choice to provide the best education
    for their kids you were involved with and promoted.
        And I know as Secretary, you have the opportunity to lead
    in the Department, but also to give additional advice, ideas,
    some will be taken by the administration, others won't.
        But always an effort to move forward, not be satisfied with
    status quo. Education is not a status quo place if it is true
    education.
        And I thank you for your leadership there, your example. I
    have had the opportunity to meet students that you have
    impacted, students from all strata, that are students going on
    into engineering, students going on into healthcare, students
    coming from higher economic strata, students coming from lower
    economic strata, all receiving an educational opportunity that
    was unique, and built the opportunity for them for expanded
    success in their life.
        So, I want my colleagues to understand, from a personal
    perspective, where you have come from, what you are looking
    for, and that you will work with us toward non-status quo
    education to meet the needs of the future.
        Thanks for being with us. And thank you for allowing me
    this opportunity.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I will remind
    you that your written statement has been distributed, it will
    appear in full in the hearing record pursuant to committee rule
    7d and committee practice. You are asked to limit your oral
    presentation to about 5 minutes of your written statement.
        You have testified here before so you know how the lighting
    system works, and after your testimony we will have questions
    for members. So, I will now recognize the Secretary of
    Education, Ms. DeVos.

        STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BETSY DEVOS, SECRETARY, U.S.
                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

        Secretary DEVOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Scott,
    Ranking Member Foxx, and members of the committee, thank you
    for the opportunity to testify on this administration's
    education priorities, which are also reflected in the
    President's Fiscal Year 2020 budget.
        I thought it would be useful to begin by recalling
    Congress' commitment when it created the U.S. Department of
    Education 40 years ago.
        Then Congress vowed that the move would ``not increase the
    authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish
    the responsibility for education which is reserved to the
    States,'' and I will add communities and parents.
        Yet over the past 40 years, Federal taxpayers' spending on
    education has increased about 180 percent, amounting to over
    $1.2 trillion cumulatively, and we are still 24th in reading,
    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. A great education shouldn't be determined by where you
    live, nor by who you know. It shouldn't be determined by family
    income, and education shouldn't be an old school, one-size-
    fits-all approach.
        That is why I propose something different, freedom. This
    administration focuses on freedom for teachers, freedom for
    parents, and freedom for all students, because we recognize
    each as a unique individual and each should be treated as such.
        Every child should be free to learn where and how it works
    for them--where and how it unlocks their potential, and so we
    propose 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 to 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations that provide
    scholarships to students.
        These students, their families, teachers, schools, States,
    all can choose to participate in the program, or they can
    choose not to participate. It is a choice, and since the
    proposal relies entirely on voluntary contributions to
    nonprofit organizations, it won't take a single dollar from
    local public schools, school teachers, or public school
    students.
        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. A proposal of an
    annual $5 billion Federal tax credit for students draws a
    bright contrast to what some have proposed; $100 billion for
    buildings versus $5 billion for students.
        This administration urges this body to invest in students.
    We believe students of all ages should be free to pursue the
    education that is right for them. That includes multiple
    pathways to higher education and successful careers. We propose
    to expand use of Pell Grants for quality short-term programs.
        It is borne from a recognition of reality, the vast
    majority of students today do not pursue a traditional 4-year
    college degree, and there are millions of opportunities for
    careers that don't require university degrees.
        We must urgently rethink our approach to higher education,
    because today Federal student aid holds $1.5 trillion in
    outstanding loans, a number that continues to grow. More than
    total auto debt and credit card debt, 43 percent of those
    student loans are either in default, more than 30 days
    delinquent, or are negatively amortized, and taxpayers are on
    the hook for it all.
        So we are putting the power of information in students'
    hands. They need open and easy access to information about
    institutions and programs in order to make better and more
    responsible decisions.
        We are excited to expand the college scorecard, and the
    MyStudentAid mobile app to help do just that. We also propose
    consolidating numerous repayment plans, and raising the cap on
    our borrowers' monthly payment, 12.5 percent of discretionary
    income.
        This is one way the Federal Government can become a more
    responsible lender. Policy should not entice students into
    greater debt, nor should they put taxpayers dollars at greater
    risk. Education freedom isn't just for parents and students
    either. Teachers need greater freedom as well. This
    administration seeks to empower America's teachers and elevate
    their profession.
        I regularly meet with a number of excellent teachers who
    tell me they would like to choose their own professional
    development and customize it for their needs. To that end, we
    want to focus on what teachers find useful for themselves, not
    what is dictated by the district office.
        These teacher vouchers treat teachers as the professionals
    they are. Teachers also tell me about the value of mentors or
    residency opportunities, so we want to help ensure new teachers
    have more opportunities to learn from the best.
        It is 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 propose
    empowering communities to 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, again, for this opportunity to testify. I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The statement of Secretary DeVos follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. We will now have questions. And
    I will begin. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Madam Secretary, in December 2018, you rescinded the
    Rethink Discipline guidance package. That guidance package
    clarified school districts' obligations and the Department's
    enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The guidance
    also provided useful information to districts on how they can
    proactively reduce racial disparities and rates of exclusionary
    discipline without jeopardizing school safety.
        Lacking evidence to support the rescission, the Trump
    administration turned its attention to the Parkland, Florida,
    shooting, blaming that tragedy on the school discipline
    guidance and the use of disparate impact theory to enforce
    Title VI.
        As articulated in the final report of Federal Commission on
    School Safety, the administration Stated that enforcement of
    Title VI using disparate impact analysis ``lacks the foundation
    and applicable law.''
        And my question is, has the Trump administration abandoned
    the use of disparate impact analysis in Title VI enforcement?
        Secretary DEVOS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for that question. I
    know this is an issue about which we have spoken in your
    office, and I am glad to address it again.
        The Department continues to enforce disparate--the
    regulation that you have articulated, and will continue to do
    so until and unless the regulations changed.
        Chairman SCOTT. And so the ``lacks foundation in applicable
    law'' was a misstatement?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, no, I think that is certainly a
    discussion and continues to be looked at and studied by both
    our agency and other agencies that are both, they will be
    charged with that.
        Chairman SCOTT. As you pointed out, the disparate impact
    analysis is legal and required under Title VI in the
    regulations?
        Secretary DEVOS. Yes. We continue to enforce as it has been
    regulated to date.
        Chairman SCOTT. Yesterday we learned the Department has
    entered into a resolution agreement with Texas Tech Medical
    School that requires the school to cease use of race in
    admissions. And now Texas Tech is mourning their loss to the
    University of Virginia in the Final Four. But in this, how many
    similarly situated cases are there involving race and college
    admissions that the OCR has active now?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, let me first address the case that
    you have cited. As you know this was a 14-year-old case, and
    Texas Tech Medical School had voluntarily entered into the
    resolution agreement. I know that there are at least a couple
    of other active cases that the Office for Civil Rights is
    involved with today. And those will continue to be
    investigated.
        Chairman SCOTT. What are we doing to increase the number
    of--since this is the medical school, you are aware that there
    are fewer African-American men in medical school now than in
    1978, there is a disparity, a significant lack of African-
    American men, what is the administration doing to increase the
    number of African-American men in medical school today?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, from the Department's perspective we
    are continuing to follow the Supreme Court's guidelines around
    use of different measures in admissions, and we will continue
    to do so. We acknowledge that it is a desirable goal to have a
    very diverse population in every educational setting.
        Chairman SCOTT. and so what is the administration doing to
    increase the number of African-American men in medical schools?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I don't think that we have an
    offensive measure to try to do. It is certainly up to different
    institutions to both follow the Supreme Court rulings in this
    matter, and also to follow their own mission of their schools.
        Chairman SCOTT. That means you are doing nothing?
        Secretary DEVOS. It means that we are following the laws
    that we are charged with following, and we will continue to do
    so.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Ranking Member, Dr. Foxx?
        Mrs. FOXX. Would you please recognize Mr. Guthrie?
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie.
        Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy. I
    appreciate it very much. Secretary DeVos, I know we have talked
    together about the Education Freedom Scholarship Act. And one
    of my just concerns about how I would like to hear it explained
    in that program, I know, in Kentucky, cities like Louisville
    and other cities have a robust private education system, so if
    there is a child in a school district, the stress, they would
    have access to this, they have readily access to a private
    school that is functioning and is there, and is moving forward.
        A lot of my counties in Kentucky are very rural, so the
    public school would be the only option, even if they had access
    to funds to do something different it would be the only option
    currently. I mean, that may change if that was the case.
        So, could you explain how this program would help students
    rural--not just rural Kentucky, but rural America that don't
    have the separate infrastructure in place?
        Secretary DEVOS. Sure, I'd be happy to. This is a really
    great opportunity for all States and all sorts of communities
    to really tailor make options and choices to the students that
    they're serving. And I think about rural communities in
    particular where a small school might not be able to offer the
    range of courses that their students might like to access.
        So one of the opportunities would be course choice to take
    a very high-quality course via the internet with a highly
    qualified teacher somewhere in the world and to do so as a one-
    off as a student.
        Another possibility would be for if there are several
    students within that rural school for whom a different type of
    learning would be appropriate, they could basically form a
    micro school housed within that same building that would
    approach learning in a different manner.
        I also think about possibilities around career and
    technical education and perhaps several communities would join
    together and offer some robust career and technical
    opportunities and maybe there is transportation scholarships
    for students to get to that opportunity along with that
    specific opportunity itself.
        So there is really limitless ideas that you could come up
    with to really tailor make your--the education options for the
    students that you are serving.
        Mr. GUTHRIE. So your vision, this isn't a voucher in your
    hand to go show up to a private school and help pay your
    private school tuition, there is just as you said a limitless
    use of these funds for great opportunities for every--a lot of
    children, young people.
        Secretary DEVOS. Right. I really think we should think very
    broadly about what choices we are talking about and not get
    reflexive and talk about, you know, some immediate reaction to
    what school choice is.
        I think we can think very broadly about offering the
    different kinds of opportunities to students that need
    something different or want something different and this is a
    great and historic opportunity to come in alongside what is
    already happening in States and augment it with some new
    opportunities.
        Mr. GUTHRIE. One of the exciting things I have changing
    subjects is and I think that it is almost everybody sitting
    here today are looking at apprenticeship programs. They want
    apprenticeship programs to be successful where people can earn
    a good middle class income when they don't have to have the big
    debt from going to 4 years of school if the 4-year school is
    not appropriate access and there are other alternatives.
        I know that we have talked about apprenticeships and could
    you talk about your view of apprenticeship programs and how the
    Department can help us in our legislation to make sure people
    have these opportunities?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, we have talked a lot about
    apprenticeships and I think that there is almost unanimity
    around this notion that more students need to have the
    opportunity to both earn and learn.
        And I think about a student that I met a couple of months
    ago, Isabel, who went to school in Minneapolis and started an
    apprenticeship while she was in high school, decided to
    continue on. At age 21 she has--she owns her own home, she owns
    her own car. She has a 401(k) and her own healthcare plan and
    she has now been offered a job to move with that company to
    Switzerland. And, you know, that is the kind of situation more
    students need to be able to access.
        So the President's budget proposes a pre-apprenticeship
    opportunity at the level of $60 million. Of course the whole
    Perkins Act, Perkins Reauthorization, helps move more
    opportunities into apprenticeship programs and the Department
    of Labor is working very hard on introducing some new
    opportunities around apprenticeships as well but this is a very
    broad opportunity that I think needs to be seized.
        Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thank you. Thank you for being here and
    we hope to all seize it. I think it is bipartisan for sure
    here. So thanks and thanks for the courtesy and I appreciate it
    and I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from California.
        Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being
    here. Madam Secretary, you mentioned that students are saddled
    with debt. I think everybody would be nodding their heads over
    that. As we know, thousands of students are reporting
    complaints about the Department's contracted loan servicers to
    the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
        Five weeks ago, Senator Murray, ranking member of the
    Senate HELP Committee, and I sent a request for information
    related to the scathing Office of Inspector General report that
    detailed the Department's failure to oversee its loan servicing
    contractors. And today we haven't received any responses to
    those questions.
        So I wanted to ask you, you know, whether--when we are
    going to receive that?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, thanks for the question,
    Congresswoman. The Department does take very seriously its
    commitment to students and are very committed to serving them
    well.
        In fact, the Federal student aid most--more recently took
    over $2 million from our services, our servicers, and we have
    recently communicated through a letter concerned--
        Ms. DAVIS. Could I ask you, Madam Secretary, can you commit
    to 2 weeks that we might have that report? We might have your
    responses to that?
        Secretary DEVOS. I certainly will hope that we can get it
    in 2 weeks. It depends on the level of data that is necessary
    to complete it. We have been trying to be very responsive to
    all the requests from members of this committee and Members of
    Congress and--
        Ms. DAVIS. Yes. Is there--I guess for all of us, we are
    just wondering--
        Secretary DEVOS. Ninety-three percent of our--93 percent of
    the over 1,000 letters that we received in--since I have been
    here have been responded to and we continue to be very, try to
    be very diligent about answering the request for information.
        Ms. DAVIS. So I think just to have a ballpark in terms of,
    for these kinds of requests, that we make through the
    Department, what is a reasonable timeline?
        Secretary DEVOS. Again, I think it is reasonable for us to
    respond promptly. If it requires the compilation of a lot of
    data that takes a lot of time and resources to do, it may take
    longer than either you or I would like.
        But I am--I give you my commitment that we will do our best
    to respond as promptly as possible.
        Ms. DAVIS. Okay. I wanted to go on then and talk about what
    the Department has said publicly about that report because it
    was scathing, as you probably saw. The Department--your
    Department asserted that it has made significant ongoing
    improvements to its oversight and monitoring policies and
    procedures since the review period of the OIG's report.
        So what are the significant improvements to oversight and
    monitoring that have been implemented since October 1 of 2017?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I just mentioned that just in the
    last year and a half, we have reserved over $2 million from our
    vendors. We have been in constant communication where there
    have been issues raised and we will continue to monitor the
    servicers to make sure they are upholding the agreements that
    they have made on behalf of the students that they are
    communing with.
        Ms. DAVIS. What could you add to that for the students that
    are there, they are listening even today and wondering, you
    know, what is going to change for them?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, we have as you probably know a very
    forward leaning next gen initiative to modernize the whole
    student financial aid framework which has been a patchwork of,
    you know, confusion for students over the years.
        I have learned that the average number of loans a student
    holds is 4.6 and they are most often with different servicers.
        Ms. DAVIS. Yes. Well, I think--
        Secretary DEVOS. So it becomes very confusing for students
    to try to manage and pay back their loans when they are having
    to deal with multiple different services.
        Ms. DAVIS. Thank you. Madam Secretary, could you tell
    students that there are going to be more audits of these
    servicers? What is it, again, that is going to go into greater
    depth for them? Because next gen I think is evolving, but we
    are not there yet. You are not there yet even in terms of
    managing that, so I think we need to be really ready to give
    them a better response.
        I know that people are certainly wondering why this is such
    an important report. I think it is because, in fact, the
    Department has this oversight responsibility for Federal
    student loans and we want to be sure that these claims are
    being addressed.
        I also wanted to mention that, you know, you are talking
    about oversight, but I think the students are really wondering
    if the 5,300 complaints mean something that folks are out there
    and they are not able to work.
        So, I mean, our bottom line is that there are millions of
    students and more who have completed higher ed degrees and are
    suffering from this crushing debt. And so we want them to feel
    that they can count on you, they can count on the inspector
    general to do these kinds of reports and then we need to have
    the kind of response back.
        So I thank you for that. We will look within a short amount
    of time I hope for those responses. Thank you.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Walberg.
        Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank you,
    Madam Secretary, for being here. Just to followup a little bit
    on the Education Freedom Scholarships. They are tax credits,
    not vouchers.
        Secretary DEVOS. That is correct. The proposal is a Federal
    tax credit that individuals or corporations would be able to
    contribute to and States would decide whether they wanted to
    participate or not.
        If they did, they would be able to craft their own program
    or programs to meet the needs of students in their States and
    give them choices, additional choices to what they have today.
        Mr. WALBERG. So not mandatory. Voluntary opportunity to
    use--
        Secretary DEVOS. Indeed.
        Mr. WALBERG [continuing]. a person's own funds--
        Secretary DEVOS. Exactly.
        Mr. WALBERG [continuing]. to make sure that the kids have
    the opportunities. I was delighted to hear your answer to
    Representative Guthrie on the issue of a career and technical
    education.
        Just came from a hearing earlier where associated general
    contractors put out a couple numbers: 286,000 shortage of
    construction workers this past February, the most recent
    figures. And that the average wage in construction now is $30
    an hour. The average wage.
        And these professional trades are truly professions that
    can provide a wonderful life and great opportunity without
    having that overweening student debt that is coming.
        Also, it has been exciting in meeting with some of our more
    forward thinking colleges and universities that are coming up
    with ideas that will reduce potentially 30 percent of tuition
    costs as a result of working with business and industry and
    allowing actual business industry to set up curriculum programs
    and work with-pay for the setting up of those curriculum
    programs that meet the needs of the real world jobs that are
    out there now. And that doesn't happen without having
    flexibility.
        But we still have. We still have student finance issues and
    last year I introduced the FASFA Act along with Representative
    Delbene of Washington, which would streamline and simplify the
    financial aid process.
        In March, this committee held a hearing on college
    affordability. During that hearing the president of Western
    Carolina University testified how the FAFSA form can act as an
    insurmountable obstacle to students in obtaining Federal aid,
    particularly for first generation and low-income families.
    Could you describe how the FAFSA Act would simplify and improve
    the FAFSA process for students as well as families?
        Secretary DEVOS. I would be happy to, Congressman. And I
    think often of the FAFSA form that Senator Alexander likes to
    regularly unfurl and the goal to dramatically shorten that form
    and make it much easier for students apply for Federal student
    aid.
        As you know, we have introduced the MyStudentAid mobile app
    which they, you know, the naysayers said couldn't be done and
    wouldn't be done. It was done and it was done on time. Students
    can now complete their FASFA on their smartphones. If the 6103
    exemption at legislation which was passed by the Senate is
    taken up and passed by the House as well, that will
    dramatically shorten the number of questions on the FAFSA form.
        And then I know that there is the legislation that you have
    introduced and are championing would also eliminate a number of
    additional questions that are really not necessary. And that
    combination I think is a really important move to make it much
    smoother and simpler for students who have to apply for Federal
    student aid on a regular basis.
        Mr. WALBERG. On the side of the universities, how would it
    benefit them with this simplified process? I have read
    statistics that 30 percent of FAFSA applications must undergo
    an income verification process.
        Secretary DEVOS. Right. Well, it would eliminate that
    process because it would--the information would be drawn
    directly from the IRS on student and family income and it would
    greatly secure that data as well. Because right now it goes
    through a number of steps and it is a--at much greater risk.
        So that combination would dramatically reduce the burden on
    institutions on the verification process.
        Mr. WALBERG. Well, I appreciate that. See the time is
    expiring here. I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr.
    Grijalva.
        Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for being here. You know, last year my home State,
    Arizona, was among several that experienced teacher walkouts,
    strikes, primarily citing working conditions and primarily
    citing teacher pay among the reasons that they took the actions
    that they did.
        I think we know that our Nation's educators are grossly
    underpaid. It varies from State to State. Some States do not
    provide the support in terms of teacher salaries or have
    significantly moved to improve teacher salaries.
        We can make the comparisons to other professionals with the
    same education and technical requirements, teachers are grossly
    underpaid, classroom teachers are.
        And I mention this and ask you, Secretary DeVos,
    conceptually do you believe that Federal--that the Federal
    Government should have--find ways to supplement public school
    teacher incomes?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, our budget has a couple
    of proposals to really focus in and elevate the profession of
    teaching and to honor and respect teachers for the
    professionals they are.
        And to give them more opportunity to control their own
    destinies in the form of their own professional development
    through the teacher voucher program and then also with the
    mentorship and residency program that, you know, today I have
    heard from so many teachers that they have--they feel obliged
    almost to move in consideration and leave the classroom when
    they mostly love being in the classroom, but in order to
    continue to develop--
        Mr. GRIJALVA. But--
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. themselves--
        Mr. GRIJALVA [continuing]. particularly would that respect
    for teachers be translated--do you think--could be translated
    into their paycheck?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, obviously teachers and their--the
    States and local communities have the most direct input into
    that, but I think we can and should find ways to ensure that
    teachers have more autotomy and more freedom to do what they do
    best and that is to serve students in their classroom and for
    great teachers to have the opportunity to teach others.
        Mr. GRIJALVA. I think my point is that I think they should
    get more pay and that in doing so is there a role for the
    Federal Government to help supplement, not supplant, but
    supplement, the income for school classroom teachers? That is a
    discussion for some other time.
        You know, Basis Charter Schools Incorporated, which is big
    in my State of Arizona, is privately owned and nearly all of
    its funding comes from State and Federal tax dollars. There are
    oversight questions related to their financial sustainability
    and its administrative costs.
        Charter schools like Basis tried to expand as quickly as
    possible which you have Stated you support. Despite all the
    fiscal red flags and in Basis' case, while they might be
    profiting outside my State, their in-State operation posted a
    primitive deficit of $49 million.
        This story has been played out in Arizona, California,
    Texas, here in Washington, DC. The lack of oversight on charter
    school finances has demonstrated significant waste of taxpayer
    dollars.
        In your budget proposal, despite numerous cuts to important
    program like Gear Up and Impact Aid, you are requesting $60
    million for the charter school program. Given what I just said,
    how do you justify that?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, there are over 1
    million students on waiting lists for charter schools
    nationally; over 11,000 right here in the District of Columbia.
    One in eight students in Washington, DC, wants to get into a
    charter school and cannot; more than 50,000 in New York City.
    So--
        Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay. I--
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. charter schools provide great
    opportunities for lots of students and there is clearly a lot
    of demand for more of them.
        Mr. GRIJALVA. Okay. Then let me then give you some
    examples. Because one of the questions is also about monitoring
    and oversight of charter schools as they are receiving
    significant and sometimes their only source of financial
    support comes from State and Federal Governments.
        How is your Department monitoring charter schools? You
    know, program grant funding to awardees that never open, open
    and close within an academic year, or never open again for the
    second academic year.
        How are we monitoring and what kind of oversight is being
    done to make sure that if those are anomalies that those
    anomalies occurred at all. But they continue to occur,
    situations keeps coming up and the issue of monitoring and
    oversight continues to be a pressing question and I want to
    know what direction the Department is going on that given the
    expansion of support for charter schools?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, charter schools are authorized by
    the States in which they reside and the programs in which the
    Department interacts with clearly has agreements and has
    oversight over those particular pieces of the program. But they
    are authorized within the State.
        And we know that there have been charter schools that
    haven't been able to make it and have closed down and that is
    good and that's appropriate. If they can't serve students well,
    they shouldn't exist. The same should be true of traditional
    public schools if they can't operate well.
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentleman's--
        Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Allen.
        Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for taking on this challenge of education and know
    that it has been in your courage to take on this challenge
    because, you know, it is very, a complex issue.
        You know, coming from the business world, specifically
    construction, I know about the shortage of workers.
        In fact, everywhere I go in my district we have a shortage
    of workers. And so it is putting tremendous pressure on our
    education system and of course in our State, I think out of a--
    out of the budget, over 50 percent of the money goes to
    education.
        I know in our county, over 50 percent of the money goes for
    education and so it is--and then you look at the statistics and
    you look at the last 20 years where the cost has gone from
    6,000 to 11,000 per student. Yet teacher salaries have not
    really increased so you wonder, well, where is the money going?
    And I am sure you are looking into all that and you have been
    an outspoken supporter of expanding the choices in education
    and I support your efforts in that because every student is
    different.
        Every students needs are different and we need to do
    everything we can in our communities to meet those needs. Could
    you tell us a little bit more about your--you know, how you
    envision your proposal to for the education innovation and
    research program under the Every Student Succeeds Act and how
    it works and why you feel it is important?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, thanks, Congressman. Yes, this is
    actually our proposal to help teachers guide and control their
    own professional development. And the proposal is really a
    pilot program to establish teacher vouchers that teachers would
    be able to pursue their own professional development. And I
    think about, you know, different opportunities an early stage
    teacher might have to take development that would help them
    with classroom management for example. Perhaps a middle stage
    teacher wants to get better at the subject matter they are
    teaching. And maybe a later stage teacher is really good at
    teaching other teachers and will pursue a mentorship or
    residency program to help new teachers learn to be better
    teachers.
        So it would be--the proposal would be meaningful amounts
    for teachers to be able to elect to pursue whatever is right
    for their own personal and professional development at the
    stage of teaching that they happen to be.
        Mr. ALLEN. Okay. Are you familiar with the--where we are as
    far as the teacher shortage in the country right now? I mean, I
    know we have one in our State. Is it pretty much nationwide?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I know that there is certainly
    challenges to recruiting teachers in certain subject areas. I
    know that States are getting creative about how they attract
    teaching new teachers into the profession and there is
    different approaches to certifying them.
        I also know that there is in rural areas where it is
    particularly difficult, they are being--you know, becoming very
    creative about how they really meet the needs of students
    without necessarily having to hire a full-time teacher for a
    specific class that doesn't have many students.
        Mr. ALLEN. Yes. We are making great strides in Georgia on
    our graduation rates and what not but on the Strengthening
    Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act,
    obviously we need to accelerate movement of students into the
    workplace.
        And thank you for you sort of explained what you're trying
    to do there as far as implementing this law. Anything you would
    like to comment further on initiatives that now that you have
    kind of heard a little bit of what we are talking about here
    today. Anything else you would like to add to that?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I think it is a great opportunity
    for States to look anew and communities to look anew at what
    the real needs are in their communities and for employers to
    really explicitly partner with educators to collectively design
    programs to meet the broader needs of their region and their
    communities.
        And places that I visited that have been particularly
    effective at this are doing really well with filling the needs
    of the employers and the opportunities in the area but there is
    still room for a lot more development, a lot more improvement
    in that area.
        Mr. ALLEN. Well, thank you again very much. And I yield
    back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Connecticut,
    Mr. Courtney.
        Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
    Speaker, for being here today. I just want to followup on my
    colleague, Congresswoman Davis, regarding the OIG report among
    servicers.
        Again just for the record, the OIG found 61 percent
    noncompliance by loan servicers in most basic functions in
    terms of, you know, not recording payments from student
    borrowers, reporting them to credit agencies inaccurately which
    is like going into credit hell when that happens for student
    borrowers.
        And again, I mean, that is an appalling rate. And I would
    ask, Mr. Chairman, that the OIG report be admitted to the
    record.
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, if I could just--
        Mr. COURTNEY. Actually let me just do this first. Okay, and
    then I will have a question for you, I promise.
        Chairman SCOTT. No objection.
        Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So not only are we
    seeing again this kind of batting average, poor batting average
    by the Department regulating loan servicers, under your
    leadership you have taken numerous steps to undermine State
    enforcement of student borrower protections.
        Last December, without any public notice, your Department
    issued a memorandum barring loan servicers from releasing
    information to State law enforcement officials.
        And again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to
    enter a memo sent by the Department to all loan servicers into
    the record.
        Thank you. So this memo has had the effect of undermining
    all State investigations into shady practices as well as
    Federal investigations by the Consumer Financial Protection
    Bureau into loan servicers.
        Brazenly the Department did not even publicly notice this
    memo and it was only obtained because someone at the Department
    leaked it. So I want to ask, given the fact that State law
    enforcement has had a spectacular record of success in terms of
    getting restitution for student borrowers who again had their
    funds misappropriated, shutting down deceptive practices and
    again as the New York AG, Minnesota AG, Illinois AG,
    Connecticut AG, I mean, they have all been doing this work
    collaboratively with the Federal Government, what is the
    rationale for the Department to shut off that flow of
    information regarding student loan servicers which has been
    standard operating procedure for decades?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, first let me comment on the
    OIG--
        Mr. COURTNEY. See I asked you a question and we don't have
    much time, so could you just sort of explain--
        Secretary DEVOS. I understand, but that--
        Mr. COURTNEY [continuing]. what the--this is a decision you
    made to shut off this information to people who are law
    enforcement. They are investigating things like fraud. I mean,
    so please explain that decision in that memo.
        Secretary DEVOS. I will be happy to, but I want to comment
    to the OIG report.
        Mr. COURTNEY. I didn't ask you about that.
        Secretary DEVOS. All the findings of which we have all--we
    have addressed. They were for a period of time that, you know,
    that was--it was from a long period of time ago. They have been
    addressed.
        With regard to the loan servicers and State involvement,
    Federal student aid is a Federal program and to involve every
    single State in a separate oversight capacity really preempts--
        Mr. COURTNEY. So again--
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. Federal--
        Mr. COURTNEY. So preemption does exist. There is no
    question about it. When Congress acts, like ERISA, we preempted
    State regulation of insurance back in the 1970's by an act of
    Congress.
        In terms of student loan servicing enforcement, Congress
    has never preempted that away from attorney generals who are
    just simply doing--enforcing in many instances their own State
    consumer protection laws.
        So, you know, again, that decision that you made with--
    again, without giving even the courtesy of a notice and had to
    be sort of found out indirectly, again is not certainly with
    the imprimatur of Congress.
        So in addition, you know, to sort of ignoring law
    enforcement who has been doing a great job in terms of
    protecting student borrowers in the 2019 appropriation by
    Congress we directed the Department to respond to all requests
    from these law enforcement agencies within 10 days of receipt
    and to make publicly available on its website a detailed list
    of all individual requests made to the Department.
        Again, to date, we have seen nothing from the Department.
    This, again, was Congress directing your Department to at least
    disclose those requests that you are refusing for people who
    are again are just simply trying to enforce law.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, we continue to take our
    responsibilities to student borrowers very seriously and
    continue to take the steps to make--ensure that the servicers
    are doing the jobs that they have been contracted to do.
        Mr. COURTNEY. Well, again, you are certainly not working
    with us in terms of trying to at least let us see whether or
    not your, again, total unilateral decision is, in fact,
    resulting in good enforcement actions being stymied and
    stifled.
        And with that, again, I have other questions for the record
    regarding preemption of State student loan borrower laws which
    we will be entering into the record, Mr. Chairman. And with
    that, I will yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Tennessee,
    Dr. Roe.
        Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for being here and also thank you for being in
    Sevier County to unveil the new app for the FAFSA and I asked
    my educators how many of those questions, 100-plus they looked
    at admitting people, and they said about 10 of them. We need to
    take that bill up to Senate heads today and pass it. It is so
    complicated and for the students, I don't know how they get
    through it.
        I am going to go a little different. I talked to a
    professor of mine this weekend who is very concerned about
    grade inflation. He is a retired professor at home and now
    today, in colleges, A is the most common grade in both 4- and
    2-year colleges and we have now--I think 42 percent of all
    colleges have an A and 77 percent an A or B. And back when I
    was in school in the sixties in college, the most common with
    fewer students going was a C. High school grades have inflated
    exactly the same way now and if you look at standardized
    testing, it has been level so the grade hasn't improved to
    standardized testing when you compare apples-to-apples. So, my
    question is why has that happened and then I do not expect you
    to finish today answering it, but don't we need to do something
    about that when three fourths almost 80 percent get an A or a B
    and I heard Alan Dershowitz on TV the other day complain about
    that at Harvard.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, it is a very good question,
    Congressman, and it also begs--there is other data that begs
    the question as well, you know, why are we 24th in the world in
    reading and 25th in science and 40th in math as compared to the
    rest of the world? You know, we continue to, I think, expect
    different results from doing the same thing and we put more and
    more resources behind doing the same things and that is why
    this administration has proposed something like the Education
    Freedom Scholarships Initiative to change that dynamic. To do
    something different to allow for students to have different
    opportunities and, you know, we look at the fact that 40
    percent of students entering a 4-year college or university
    have to take a remedial class and 60 percent going to community
    colleges. It is a commentary on the whole preparation that they
    experience in the K12 system.
        Mr. ROE. Well, I think it is something we definitely need
    to look into because an A does not mean, you know, anything.
        Anyway, I want to talk about a couple of other things and
    one of the things we talked about the other day is I have a
    very interest in career technical education and the three
    numbers I mentioned to you are 77, 97, and 0. And I talked to
    one of the presidents of our technical schools at home and they
    graduate 77 percent of the students on time, 19 percent of
    college students at 4-year schools graduated on time, and 59
    percent graduate within 6 years with this huge debt. So, 77
    percent finish on time in what they started in whether it is a
    nursing assistant, welding, or whatever; 97 percent in
    Tennessee are placed in their career path, get a job; and 100
    percent graduate with 0 debt.
        So, it is a huge advantage and we, I think, need to be
    encouraging students to look at these career paths as Mr.
    Guthrie was talking about just a minute ago and I just would
    like to hear your comments on that.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I couldn't agree more and this
    administration is very, very supportive of elevating and
    supporting a multitude of career paths to a great adult future
    and acknowledges that we have got to continue to raise the
    specter of these opportunities and give them equal credence to
    the unspoken or often very verbally articulated pressure to go
    to a 4-year college or university. And yet we have, as you have
    just noted, so many great opportunities for young people to
    consider and pursue and it is not to say they can't return to
    an educational setting later on and do something different.
    They will have multiple careers in their adult lives so we have
    got to--
        Mr. ROE. Seven million empty jobs and very quick. And my
    time is expiring, but I had a round table with your educators a
    year ago about school safety and that discussion very quickly
    turned to mental health. And we went to our local hospital and
    we found that in our area we only had 11 inpatient beds for
    young people, young adults, with mental health issues. We are
    working on solving that problem locally now.
        Another problem that was local, we are in a rural area and
    we have a rural school that K through 12 only has 110 students,
    K through 12. So, if a student there wants to take calculus,
    they can now go online at one of the other larger high schools
    online. This was done by a private entrepreneur, Scott
    Niswonger, I will mention his name, who was able to provide
    these students a great high school education from distance
    learning. You have been very general with your time. I will
    yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms.
    Fudge.
        Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. Madam Secretary, if
    you could just help me out. Five minutes is a very short period
    of time, so if you could just be more concise with your
    answers, I would appreciate it. Madam Secretary, do you realize
    that it is your responsibility to educate every child in the
    United States?
        Secretary DEVOS. It is my responsibility to be the
    Secretary--
        Ms. FUDGE. It is just a yes or no, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary DEVOS. It is my responsibility to do my duty as
    Secretary of Education.
        Ms. FUDGE. Is that a yes or is that a no? Okay. You are
    very good at evading. That is a really simple question so we
    will move on. My concern is that you spent so much of your time
    focused on vouchers, how do we fund religious and private
    schools? And then you come up with something called The
    Education Freedom Scholarship, which by any other name is a
    voucher. We are once again picking winners and losers, which is
    something that my colleagues complained about for years and
    years about democrats. You, in fact, are trying to pick winners
    and losers. Now, I have never been aware of a tax credit that
    is a $1 to $1, 100 percent credit. So, now, we have already
    decided that we are going to make rich people richer with the
    tax cuts, we are going to make poor people about the same,
    middle class we are going to hurt with more taxes. So, now it
    is like you guys are not smart enough to take advantage of all
    these tax credits. Let me give you another bite of this apple.
    Let me let you give money to schools so that you can take 100
    percent tax credit. It is the most ridiculous thing that I have
    ever heard. But, once again, by any other name, it is a voucher
    and it is something to benefit the rich.
        Madam Secretary, are you aware that Alabama and Florida
    have State tuition tax credit programs and they have shown no
    improvement in academic achievement for students?
        Secretary DEVOS. I am aware they have programs and you are
    wrong. They have shown improvement for students.
        Ms. FUDGE. Well, I would love for you to send me that data,
    please.
        Secretary DEVOS. I would be happy to.
        Ms. FUDGE. You say in your remarks, as well as in your
    written testimony, that this proposal takes not one cent from
    local public school students or public school teachers. You did
    that in your own budget by cutting the education budget by 10
    percent. That is something that you did. But let me also
    suggest to you that, in fact, it is hurting taxpayers. If you
    give a 1-to-1 tax credit, it is going to create a $5 billion a
    year hole in the Federal Treasury. So, that's $5 billion that
    could be spent on education and other things. So, indeed, it
    does hurt students.
        You talk about freedom, which is just so enlightening for
    me that there is freedom. Do you know that freedom is not free?
    This freedom is going to cost us $5 billion a year, 50 billion
    dollars over 10 years. Freedom is not free. We learned that
    during the Civil Rights Movement.
        Secretary DEVOS. These are voluntary contributions that
    individuals--
        Ms. FUDGE. Reclaiming my time. This is my time. Freedom is
    not free. We have experienced it over and over again. There is
    a cost to everything we do. Yours just happens to be $50
    billion to the Treasury. I just wish that at some point we
    would just be honest with what we are doing, and we would just
    tell the American people that what we are doing with this is
    creating a shell game to fund private and religious schools and
    their providers using taxpayers as the middle man. That is what
    we are doing. It is nothing more than another attempt to
    disinvest in public education and that is why I asked you the
    first question, which you couldn't even answer. Do you
    represent all of the children of the United States? It is not
    your job to educate all of the children? It was not a trick
    question. It was a very simple question. So, I just hope that
    the next time you come in front of us that you would stop the
    evasion and just give us a simple answer. Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
    Byrne.
        Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, it is
    good to see you again. I believe the Civil Rights Act is clear
    that no child should face discrimination in school based on
    race, color, or national origin, whether that is in access to
    classes and programs or through discipline practices. Do you
    agree that the law is clear and can you tell us what you are
    doing to prevent discrimination?
        Secretary DEVOS. Thanks, Congressman. I concur with you and
    we are working hard to ensure that all students' civil rights
    are respected and upheld.
        And a couple of things that I would like to mention what we
    are doing prospectively. We have an initiative to address the
    inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint. It is a joint
    initiative between the Office for Civil Rights and the Office
    for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and it
    provides an opportunity to highlight this important issue and
    support schools and districts and States as they work to meet
    the needs of each of their students.
        Understanding that this is an important topic for many on
    this committee, I can assure everyone that the Department is
    committed to ensuring that these practices do not deprive any
    child of the opportunity to thrive and succeed in school. Even
    one child harmed through inappropriate use of seclusion and
    restraint is one too many.
        Another area that we have continued to be on the proactive
    side is to hold regular webinars, technical assistance for
    those who need to work on the web accessibility of their
    institutions and we are responding to complaints, but we are
    being proactive with all institutions and inviting them to know
    and understand the use of webinars on a regular basis. Those
    are a couple of areas that we are working hard proactively, but
    also, we are working reactively to make sure that all
    complaints that are brought to us are addressed.
        Mr. BYRNE. Well, thank you for being proactive. I think
    that shows your commitment to making sure the law is followed.
    I know you and I both want the best for all of our students and
    it has been my pleasure to work with you on the Education
    Freedom Scholarship proposal. I am so excited to see the
    support it is getting, not just here in Congress, but in States
    all across the Nation.
        I do want to clear up one point for my colleagues on the
    other side of the aisle. The Education Freedom Scholarship
    proposal is not a budget item in the Education budget's Fiscal
    Year 2020 budget. Am I right about that?
        Secretary DEVOS. You are right about that.
        Mr. BYRNE. So, it wouldn't take any funds away from our
    education program, would it?
        Secretary DEVOS. That is correct.
        Mr. BYRNE. Good. So, why don't you tell everybody a little
    bit about what it would do?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, it would provide a tax credit, but a
    tax credit fund that States could elect to be part of and they
    could choose voluntarily to be part of it and then to formulate
    programs within their State and contrary to what your colleague
    on the other side of the aisle just alleged, it does not take
    anything away from any budget and, in fact, it is geared toward
    students and toward empowering students to make a different
    choice for their education through the form of scholarships.
    That would be access through scholarship granting organizations
    designated by each State. You know, 501(c)(3) scholarship
    granting organizations and we talked a bit earlier about
    possible uses. It could be to access really new and robust
    career and technical education opportunities in a region. It
    could be for transportation to get to different opportunities.
    It could be to access course choice in small rural schools and
    it could be used for just a wide variety of uses, but the key
    being that families and students would be empowered to make a
    choice that fits for them and for their future and what they
    want to learn and what they want to pursue.
        Mr. BYRNE. We have a great example in Alabama in Sumpter
    County, which is one of our poorest counties, and one of these
    schools was established and many of the students that are now
    going to that school are for the first time in their lives
    going to school with someone of the opposite race because we
    had total segregation in Sumpter County. And this school has
    brought African-American children and white children together
    in a school in Sumpter County for most of them for the first
    time of their lives and some of their, like, family's lives.
    So, this is not just providing better education, it is actually
    drawing this very poor rural community together and I think
    that is great for that community, but communities around the
    country. So, I thank you for your leadership on that.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from the Northern
    Mariana Islands, Mr. Sablan.
        Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam
    Secretary, thank you for being here today. Secretary DeVos, you
    arrived in your position at a time when Republicans passed a
    resolution of disapproval in both chambers to overturn the
    Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA, accountability reporting, and
    State plan regulations. While these regulations were
    overturned, the law's requirements remained unchanged. ESSA
    includes important Federal guardrails to hold States and school
    districts accountable for meeting the needs of all students.
    While there is flexibility, the law is not a blank check.
    Compliance with the law's requirement is not optional. So, let
    me ask you, are you aware, Madam Secretary, that 40 States do
    not include disaggregated achievement data for at least one
    federally required subgroup on their State report card as
    required by Federal law?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, I was pleased to be able to
    approve every State's ESSA plan and I didn't approve any plans
    that did not comply completely with the law and we are now in
    the monitoring phase and continued to ensure that States comply
    with the law.
        Mr. SABLAN. I would just like a yes or no answer on the
    record. Are you aware that approximately 40 States do not
    include disaggregated achievement data for at least one
    federally required subgroup under statute?
        Secretary DEVOS. Again, Congressman, all of the ESSA plans
    comply with the law and we continue to ensure that States do
    comply with that law.
        Mr. SABLAN. Madam Secretary, that is not a yes or no. So,
    let me ask you this then, can States and school districts
    address educational equity without this information?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, again, we have ensured that
    all of the ESSA plans from every State comply with the law and
    we are committed to ensuring that as they implement them they
    continue to comply with the law.
        Mr. SABLAN. I only have 5 minutes so, respectfully, I will
    be reclaiming my time, Madam Secretary. The answer is no, we
    cannot advance equity without this information. The law
    requires States to disaggregate data by subgroups to ensure
    accurate data on student achievement and accurate data is
    critical for parents, educators, and policymakers. So, how do
    you plan to address this issue to make sure the States are
    compliant with the law and are held accountable for the success
    of all students?
        Secretary DEVOS. Again, sir, we continue to monitor the
    States as they implement their ESSA plans to make sure they are
    compliant with all aspects of the law and we are committed to
    doing so.
        Mr. SABLAN. Let me be very simple. English is my second
    language, but you are not giving me an answer. So, let me be
    very simple, Madam Secretary. Can I have today your commitment
    to improve ESSA oversight and hold States accountable for
    implementing the letter and intent of the law? Your commitment,
    yes or no?
        Secretary DEVOS. We are committed to continuing to ensure
    every State follows the law in the implementation of their ESSA
    plan.
        Mr. SABLAN. On the record, you are saying that you are--I
    think I say yes. So, let me go to my next issue. According to
    the Alliance for Excellent Education, the Department of
    Education approved at least 12 States to implement
    accountability systems that do not take into account the
    performance of historically underserved students, as required
    by law, despite what you just told me. Parents and communities
    are now starting to see the school letter grades issue by
    States based on these systems. I am concerned that this letter
    grade may provide misleading information. For example, in one
    State, 25 percent of schools that receive an A are identified
    for targeted support due to the performance of historically
    underserved students. In that same State, 71 percent of schools
    that received a B are identified for targeted support. Does it
    make sense to you for a school to receive an A or a B if its
    students of color or other subgroups consistently underperform?
    These are the facts. These are data.
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, again, we are committed to
    monitoring the States to ensure that they continue to comply
    with the law as they implement their ESSA plans.
        Mr. SABLAN. Madam Secretary, respectfully, you are not
    answering my question. The students, the educators, we deserve
    direct answers. So, let me ask again, how is the Department
    holding States accountable for using subgroup performance to
    inform action to intervene in and provide additional support
    for under-resourced schools?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, again, I have told you and I
    will tell you again, we are committed to continuing to ensure
    that States are complying with the laws and that they are
    following the requirements of the law regarding ESSA.
        Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, Madam Secretary, you have not
    answered my question, but thank you very much for trying. I
    appreciate it. I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik.
        Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
    good to see you today. I wanted to focus my questions on higher
    ed. When I visit colleges and universities and community
    colleges in my district, it is very clear that the traditional
    student today is, in fact, nontraditional. Oftentimes, they are
    going back to pursue their education midcareer, they are
    working part-time or they are raising a family. And I think
    that we need to work to modernize opportunities in higher ed to
    make it available for the nontraditional students. The
    Department has proposed an expansion of Pell Grants to shorter
    term programs. How will this help contemporary students gain
    skills and career and technical education that is very
    impactful in finding jobs in today's economy?
        Secretary DEVOS. Thanks for that question, Congresswoman,
    and yes, we have proposed to expand Pell to be eligible for
    short-term, high-quality programs for certifications and
    certificates. We know that there are many jobs available today
    that require just a short-term kind of program and yet, we have
    been very rigid in terms of how we viewed the use of Pell funds
    and so we believe that expanding that and would look forward to
    working with Congress on the appropriate guardrails around
    that, but I think that short-term would be an excellent move.
        Ms. STEFANIK. I agree with you and I think it is a real
    opportunity for bipartisan modernization of the Pell program.
    Another Pell related question is we know when we are looking at
    the historic amount of student loan debt and that a large
    percentage of that student loan debt is students who have not
    completed. And I understand that 60 percent of those who
    actually obtain a Bachelors Degree today do so in 6 years so
    that is much longer than the traditional 4 years and we also
    know that the longer it takes a student to complete that
    degree, the more debt they accrue.
        One of the proposals that you and I have discussed and the
    Department has put forward is utilizing Pell for dual
    enrollment programs. Can you expand upon that?
        Secretary DEVOS. Yes, well, many students would like to
    pursue college level classes in high school. They have
    completed their high school requirements and we think that
    expansion of Pell into those opportunities is another way to
    modernize and acknowledge what the opportunities are for
    students today.
        Ms. STEFANIK. Absolutely. And I think it also will help us
    ensure that the completion rate increases and that students are
    graduating at a faster rate, therefore, taking out a lower
    amount of student loan and then having lesser student loan
    debt.
        The last question I wanted to ask is related to work study.
    I understand that each year Congress appropriates over $1
    billion to the Federal Work Study Program and this is a
    substantial sum of money. It largely goes to finance student
    jobs on campus and those jobs are not necessarily positions
    related to student's career academic interests. Your budget
    proposes reforms to this. Can you talk about that?
        Secretary DEVOS. I would love to. We believe that allowing
    students to essentially do an internship or an apprenticeship
    in jobs or with businesses related to careers that they want to
    pursue would be very compatible with their actual formal
    learning and so we have proposed to change work study
    requirements to allow for employers to have students, host
    students, as part of their academic studies and through a work
    study program in business.
        Ms. STEFANIK. I agree and, again, as I visit employers that
    are near local colleges, they are eager to partner. They are
    eager to identify the future of their work force as early as
    possible to help them develop those skills. So, I wanted to
    highlight these three very important bipartisan opportunities
    that we can pursue as a committee and I look forward to working
    with you.
        Secretary DEVOS. Likewise. Thanks.
        Ms. STEFANIK. I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms.
    Bonamici.
        Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, a
    budget is a Statement of priorities and values and I worked
    hard on the Every Student Succeeds Act and I am deeply
    disappointed that the President's budget would zero out funding
    for Title IV Part A grants. These are the flexible block grants
    that support well-rounded education, art, civics, safe and
    healthy schools, technology, so all students benefit, not just
    those in wealthy districts or neighborhoods. These grants have
    bipartisan support. They are an essential part of ESSA. It is
    unacceptable that the Department does not see their value
        So, previously, you told me that Title IV Part A funds are
    spread too thin to be effective. If that is your position,
    isn't the logical thing to fully fund Title IV Part A grants
    rather than eliminate them, which exacerbates inequality of
    opportunity? And that is a yes or no question.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congresswoman, it is not a yes or no
    answer because we had to put forward a budget that met the
    requirement of a 10 percent reduction overall so we had to make
    difficult choices so we chose to--
        Ms. BONAMICI. And I need to reclaim my time and move on to
    another question, but you told me that they are spread too
    thin, so the logical thing is to fully fund them rather than
    spread them too thin.
        Now, I want to ask you about ACICS. The Department of
    Education fully reinstated ACICS as a recognized accreditor
    even after they oversaw some of the largest collapses of
    institutions of higher education in American history:
    Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, and after they were reinstated,
    ECA. And in every case ACICS disregarded clear warning signs
    and failed to act quickly enough to protect students and
    taxpayers.
        So, last year several of my colleagues and I sent you two
    letters about this. We urged you to rescind the decision. We
    expressed concern that the Department's decision was based, at
    least in part, on erroneous and misleading information,
    including claims that ACICS secured endorsement and support
    from other accrediting agencies, which turned out to be false.
    We also requested the information and documentation that you
    considered.
        So, you have not answered the letters so rather than having
    us wait longer, please explain why did the Department fully
    reinstate an accreditor that repeatedly accredited schools that
    harm students?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congresswoman, it is a provisional
    reinstatement. There are still a couple of provisions that
    ACICS has to address and it is important to note that we were
    ordered by the court to reexamine the ACICS case, 36,000 pages
    of information the previous administration did not even
    acknowledge or deal with in this process, and so, we did so. It
    was a very in-depth review and study and the reinstatement came
    with a review of all of that information that heretofore had
    not been considered.
        Ms. BONAMICI. I am reclaiming my time. Do you have a
    timeframe for responding to those letters because we sent them
    last year? Can we get them in the next 2 weeks?
        Secretary DEVOS. I will certainly look into it, yes.
        Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. We do need that underlying
    information what you considered because, again, some of the
    information was false.
        I have another question. Yesterday the Civil Rights
    Subcommittee held a hearing on the Equality Act. We know that
    transgender students are frequently bullied and victimized. We
    know also that the 2016 guidance to schools about transgender
    students was applauded by education experts, healthcare
    experts, educators, counselors, pediatricians, psychologists
    because it made students safer at school. But your Department
    rolled back that guidance creating uncertainty and concern. So,
    I have two questions. When you rolled back that guidance, did
    you know that the stress of harassment and discrimination can
    lead to lower attendance and grades as well as depression and
    anxiety for transgender students? Did you know that?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congresswoman, OCR is committed to
    ensuring all students have equal access to education free from
    discrimination.
        Ms. BONAMICI. Sorry, I would really like an answer.
    Students and families need to know this. We had a mother of a
    transgender student here yesterday. We need to know this. Did
    you know when you rolled back the guidance that the stress of
    harassment and discrimination can lead to lower attendance and
    grades as well as depression for transgender students? Did you
    know that when you rolled back the guidance?
        Secretary DEVOS. I do know that, but I will say again that
    OCR is committed to ensuring that all students have access to
    their education free from discrimination.
        Ms. BONAMICI. Let me ask you this as well. When you rolled
    back the guidance, did you know that a study recently published
    by the American Academy of Pediatrics revealed alarming levels
    of attempted suicide among transgender youth? Did you know that
    as well when you rolled back that guidance?
        Secretary DEVOS. I am aware of that data.
        Ms. BONAMICI. I am extremely concerned based on what we
    heard yesterday about the rollback of that guidance. In my
    remaining time, I want to followup on Congresswoman Fudge's
    question about Education Freedom Scholarships because a $5
    billion tax credit means $5 billion less in revenue. And I do
    want to point out that you did receive three Pinocchios from
    the Washington Post for trying to say that was not using public
    money. It is public money if it is $5 billion less in revenue.
    That revenue could go to fund Pell Grants, to fund Title IV
    grants. And I see my time is expired. I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Smucker.
        Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Madam
    Secretary. Thank you for being here. I would like to just
    briefly talk about education free scholarships and let other
    members of the committee know just a little bit about a similar
    program in Pennsylvania, the EITC program, that has been in
    effect for a number of years and we have had a lot of
    discussions in Pennsylvania around charter schools. We have had
    discussions about school choice programs. There have been
    voucher programs. But the EITC program in the midst of all
    those discussions has had broad bipartisan support throughout
    the entirety that the program has been in effect and, in fact,
    almost every year we have been increasing the number of tax
    credit programs that are available. Why? Because people on both
    sides of the aisle see the benefit to students who could not
    potentially have the opportunity to attend a great school see
    the scholarships that are available through the program have
    talked to the families and the parents who desperately want to
    get their child into a school that works for them and again,
    have supported this on a bipartisan basis, both Republican and
    Democrat Governors.
        So, I think it is a great proposal. I appreciate the work
    that you are doing to ensure that every child has the
    opportunity for the world class education that they deserve,
    that every child has the opportunity for an education that will
    prepare them for life after K-12 whether it is a college or the
    military or directly to the workplace. It is critical that we
    continue that work and I am troubled by some of the points that
    are made by folks in their questioning to you that you are
    picking winners and losers as a result of this program. Our
    system today picks winners and losers based on your ability to
    pay for tuition at a private school if your school is not
    effective.
        Now, I have three of my own kids who have been through the
    public school system. We are fortunate to have, in the district
    that I represent, some absolutely great public schools and we
    should do everything that we can to continue to support the
    work that those schools are doing. But if there are districts
    where a parent does not have an opportunity to send their child
    to a school that will provide that kind of opportunity, it is
    incumbent upon us to be ensuring we put policies in place and
    we provide the resources so that everyone has that opportunity.
    So, I guess I would like you just to speak to that for a
    minute.
        I know the work that you have done to ensure that every
    student has an opportunity, to ensure that we have great
    schools whether they are public schools, whether they are
    private schools, whether they are magnet schools, charter
    schools, which are public schools, but, you know, I would like
    to talk just a little bit about this idea that we are picking
    winners and losers and how the work that you are doing
    indicates that is not what you are trying to do.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, thanks, Congressman, and I know that
    Pennsylvania has had great success in meeting students' needs.
    And let me just say, my focus is and always will be on students
    and on helping all students get a great education through an
    equal opportunity. The Education Freedom Scholarships proposal
    would help advance that for many, many students and it is
    focused on students. As you have identified, individuals today
    who have the financial resources to send their child or
    children to a different school or to move to a different place
    already have choices, but there are way too many families that
    don't have that choice and we continue to consign them in too
    many cases to schools that do not work for them. There are
    studies after studies showing that we continue to do the same
    thing and expect different results. I am suggesting we do
    something different and test out and see how many different
    results we will get by doing something completely different and
    Education Freedom Scholarships would take us in that direction.
        Chairman SCOTT. Time has expired. They have called votes,
    but we have time to get in one additional set of questions. The
    gentleman from California, Mr. Takano.
        Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, good
    morning. I would like to get directly at the questions related
    to borrowers' defense. Just 2 weeks ago, on March 28, Senator
    Patty Murray questioned you before the Senate Appropriations
    Committee on the number of borrower defense claims that your
    Department has approved since the October 2018 court order. The
    Department's own quarterly data through December 31, 2018,
    established that zero claims have been approved. Is it still
    true that no borrower defense claims have been approved?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, they had been being
    approved before the court stepped in. They have not been since
    the court stepped in.
        Mr. TAKANO. Madam Secretary, excuse me, by your own
    Department statistics, as of December 31, it showed that your
    Department has approved zero claims and then you also answered
    before Senator Patty Murray you thought that one was approved,
    but then the next day you issued a statement saying that no, in
    fact, that zero claims have been approved.
        Secretary DEVOS. It is true that none have been approved in
    the last several months. That is due to a pending court
    decision, a court case that has precluded us from continuing
    to--
        Mr. TAKANO. Madam Secretary, that court decision you are
    talking about is October 2018 and it lifted the stay and
    ordered you to implement the rule. So, I take it that zero
    claims have been approved and that nothing has changed. I would
    like to better understand the process by which the Department
    decides on borrower defense claims and why it has taken you so
    long to process the nearly 160,000 pending claims. I want you
    to understand that merely processing claims and faithfully
    implementing the rule, which you have been ordered to do by the
    court, are different. We see that you haven't approved or
    rejected claims, but you are closing them. Is your Department
    cherry-picking borrower defense claims with the intent to close
    out those cases?
        Secretary DEVOS. We have been addressing closed school
    discharges with the students that clearly qualify for their
    student loan forgiveness, and that's to the tune of $172
    million.
        Mr. TAKANO. My question is, are you cherry-picking borrower
    defense claims with the intent to close them out?
        Secretary DEVOS. We have closed out 16,519 eligible
    borrowers.
        Mr. TAKANO. I understand you have closed out those claims,
    but are you specifically cherry-picking them in order to close
    them out.
        Secretary DEVOS. We are ensuring that those who are due
    relief because of closed school discharge are addressed
    immediately. There are other students who have submitted--
        Mr. TAKANO. Okay. I repeat that you have not approved or--I
    am reclaiming my time. You have not approved or rejected a
    single claim. You have closed thousands of cases. Have you or
    any of your political appointees instructed career staff at the
    Department to focus on prioritizing the closing of the claims
    over approving them, yes or no?
        Secretary DEVOS. That have prioritized, I am sorry?
        Mr. TAKANO. Have you or any of your political appointees
    instructed career staff of the Department to focus on
    prioritizing the closing of claims over approving them.
        Secretary DEVOS. We are focused on addressing all borrower
    defense--
        Mr. TAKANO. That is a yes or no question.
        Secretary DEVOS. It is not a yes or no answer.
        Mr. TAKANO. Have you ordered your political appointees--
        Secretary DEVOS. We have attempted--
        Mr. TAKANO. Madam Secretary, I remind you, you are under
    oath. The question is have you or any of your political
    appointees instructed career staff at the Department to focus
    on prioritizing the closing of claims over approving them?
        Secretary DEVOS. We are focused on ensuring that the
    students clearly have closed school discharges--
        Mr. TAKANO. I think that is a non-answer. I am reclaiming
    my time. On the off-chance that your Department were to ever
    approve a student claim, is it not true that if the school has
    closed that the taxpayers are now liable for this debt and not
    the school that defrauded the student?
        Secretary DEVOS. The closed school discharge claims are
    ones that we are processing that we have already addressed $172
    million.
        Mr. TAKANO. I am reclaiming my time. I am reclaiming my
    time. The answer is that when the school is closed, the
    taxpayers are liable for that unpaid loan. However, if the
    school is still open, the Department has the ability to begin
    processing the--recovering the recompense of these schools.
    Knowing this, a reasonable and prudent person might posit the
    idea that your Department may have the perverse incentive to
    intentionally delay implementation of the borrower defense rule
    to protect the financial interests of these for-profit
    institutions and their investors. Last month you also confirmed
    that the Department is still working to promulgate new borrower
    defense rulemaking. Is the fact that the Department is drafting
    a new rule, a possible explanation for the delayed
    implementation of the borrower defense rule?
        Secretary DEVOS. We are implementing the borrower defense
    rule as ordered to do and we are also in the process of
    continuing to refine the rule because we do not agree with the
    previous policy of the--
        Mr. TAKANO. Well, Madam Secretary, I will state again that
    160,000 pending claims, not a single approved claim, thousands
    and thousands of closed claims. I am very troubled by your non-
    answers today. Madam Secretary, there is no freedom in a
    student being obligated to pay off a loan from a school that
    has defrauded them. It is an unjust burden. I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. As the clock shows, a vote has been called.
    There are several votes and it will be at least about a half an
    hour before we can get back. We will recess until 10 minutes
    after 11. Committee is in recess.
        [Recess]
        Chairman SCOTT. The committee will come back to order, and
    I want to welcome everyone back to the hearing with Secretary
    DeVos, but before we resume questioning, I needed to clarify a
    couple of things for the record. First, Madam Secretary, the
    OIG report referenced by my colleague from Connecticut, Mr.
    Courtney, on loan servicing did not only review records prior
    to your time as Secretary, the OIG did a review of records from
    January 2015 through September 2017, which means that the OIG
    did find failure to adequately supervise loan servicing during
    your--while you were Secretary. While I am glad you collected
    something from services for their noncompliance, the record
    should reflect that this amount only represents less than 0.1
    percent of the $1.7 billion that--budgeted for servicing. Given
    that 61 percent of the reports reviewed by the OIG showed
    failures, I would have expected a larger collection.
        Second, Madam DeVos, you mentioned the importance of
    allowing the Federal Work Study to better align with students'
    career goals, but failed to mention that you had proposed to
    cut the program by more than half in your budget. And third,
    during my questioning, I asked if Disparate Impact Analysis is
    legal and required under Title VI and the regulations. Your
    response was yes, we continue to enforce it, as it has been
    regulated to date.
        Based on that, I can assume that data that shows that a
    school district policy or practice has a potentially
    discriminatory effect--For example, when a district is
    expelling black students at a rate disproportionately higher
    than white students--the Office of Civil Rights, under your
    leadership, will be opening investigations, when data show the
    discriminatory effect, in compliance with that regulation. With
    that, I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
    Walker.
        Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Early this year, I
    introduced the SOAR Reauthorization Act of 2019. This
    legislation reauthorizes the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
    Program for 5 years, providing low-income students in the
    District of Columbia scholarships to attend high-quality
    elementary and secondary private schools. Ninety-one percent of
    students participating in the programs are minorities with an
    average family income of $24,000. These scholarships provide a
    lifeline to students who would not have opportunities to
    achieve academic success otherwise. Like you, Secretary, I have
    met some of these wonderful families, and have seen the hope
    this particular legislation brings to pass.
        Secretary DeVos, I want to thank you for your requesting
    increased funding for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.
    In your opinion, two-part question, why is it important for
    Congress to act now and reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity
    Scholarship Program, and what are some of the possible impacts
    of a lapse in funding for this program?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, first, let me say thank
    you for your leadership on championing this in your committee
    and in your body. I think that, well, first of all, the
    Opportunity Scholarship Program is serving students' needs
    today, and there is a demand, an increased demand for more
    students to be able to participate. So, there is a demand for
    more opportunity. That is why we have asked for an increase in
    funding there, doubling that program, and then it is important
    to act because these students' opportunities are going to run
    out if the funding is not reauthorized, and if it is not made a
    permanent part of their ability to plan.
        We know that more than half the students in the District of
    Columbia actually choose schools different than their assigned
    one, and this has made for a very robust and great improvement
    on many levels.
        Mr. WALKER. That is an interesting point that you just
    made. I do not want to get past that over half, or right at
    half, of these students would choose different schools. That is
    important, and it allows--it empowers the parents and these
    families to make the best education choices. There have been
    many claims. We have heard some interesting claims, even today,
    by my Democratic colleagues, about the SOAR Reauthorization Act
    of 2019 diverting resources from the public schools. How would
    you respond to those claims, specifically, in regards to the
    three-sector approach of this legislation?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, the District of Columbia has done a
    great job of addressing the needs of all students, and allowing
    for students to find the right fit for them. It should be a
    model everywhere, frankly. Students need to go where their
    education is going to work and fit for them, and Washington,
    DC, has been a good model for this, and all students'
    achievement has been improved, as a result of having these
    choices and the competition between the various kinds of
    schools.
        Mr. WALKER. I think the evidence supports that. Let me
    switch topics and kind of go into the higher education, if I
    could, please, and talk about the historical black colleges and
    universities. I represent the largest HBC in the country. My
    wife is a two-time graduate of Winston-Salem State. I represent
    A&T. We have a little Aggie/Ram thing about football season,
    but that is a different time to talk about.
        I do understand the importance, and the roles, and I have
    seen the, really, the great work that some of our HBCUs are
    doing, and what they--and the role they play in the higher
    education system. Secretary DeVos, from my understanding, your
    budget request had included $626.4 million for programs related
    to HBCUs. Is that correct?
        Secretary DEVOS. That is correct.
        Mr. WALKER. Can you elaborate on the initiatives and plans
    of the Department to improve academic quality and increase
    opportunities in the aforementioned HBCUs?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, we think HBC--this President and
    this administration know and respect the value that HBCUs bring
    to higher ed in our country, and we continue to support them
    and their missions. I meet regularly with the presidents of
    many of the HBCUs and the leadership of their consortium, and
    continue to look for ways to--for them to be able to strengthen
    the programs they are offering, and to be able to offer more
    students the opportunities that they already have.
        Mr. WALKER. Three years ago, Senator Tim Scott and I
    partnered, for the first time ever, to bring more than 80
    chancellors of historical black colleges and universities to
    Washington, DC. It was a way that we could hear firsthand, and
    see what the issues and the concerns were. You were gracious
    enough, I think it was maybe our second year, that you came
    out, after being named the Secretary of Education, that you
    came.
        One of the things that we learned from those meetings is
    the importance of Pell Grants and how, with an estimated 70
    percent of students eligible for Pell Grants, one of the things
    that we learned was to not just have these in the spring and
    summer, but to be able to incorporate that, those, year-round.
    With your support, we were able to see that come into law. My
    final question, for you, is how does the Department's budget
    expand access to these Pell Grants?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, the budget proposes expanding Pell
    Grants to short-term, high-quality programs, so that students
    can access certification and certificate programs that do not
    take a full semester or a full year, and we think this is an
    important next step to modernize--
        Mr. WALKER. Sure.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. the Pell offering.
        Mr. WALKER. Thank you for your service. And with that, Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from North
    Carolina, Ms. Adams?
        Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for being here today. I listened to Congressman from
    North Carolina talk about Pell Grants, and I am 40 years,
    retired, college professor in Greensboro, at Bennett College.
    My question of your--in terms of following up on that, Pell
    Grants are great. Many of our students who attend HBCUs, 80 to
    90 percent of them depend on it and financial aid, and, yes, we
    have expanded it year-round. But I think we also need to--we
    got to expand the money year-round, because if you stretch it
    out, and we do not put the additional dollars in that, that
    does not help very much, but it is certainly an opportunity for
    students to do better. Is it true that your Fiscal Year 2020
    budget plan fails to request reauthorization of mandatory
    funding for MSIs, resulting in a cut of $255 million for MSIs,
    including $85 million to HBCUs, which represents some of our
    lowest endowed institutions, and I want to move quickly? So, if
    you could, tell me if you know that, yes or no?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, ma'am, the budget has proposed
    consolidating many of those smaller grants into one that could
    be better targeted to the institutions and that way, primarily,
    the students that need it most, to give more flexibility to
    meet individual students' needs.
        Ms. ADAMS. So, that is a yes or a no?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, it is a proposal to consolidate--
        Ms. ADAMS. Okay. That--
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. some of the smaller line
    items into one, with a mission--
        Ms. ADAMS. Oh, okay.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. to serve those students--
        Ms. ADAMS. Right.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. more broadly and more
    effectively.
        Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. All right. What was the rationale for
    eliminating funding that many institutions depend on, which
    could eventually force a handful of them to close?
        Secretary DEVOS. We, again, have made budget requests on
    the discretionary side. We also know that the mandatory side,
    of course, is not impacted by any of the budget requests. We
    continue to want to ensure that students have the most
    opportunity to access the funds that Congress intends to reach
    the most needy and vulnerable students.
        Ms. ADAMS. Okay. Let me move on because I have got a lot I
    want to ask. It appears to me that the Department may have its
    priorities a little bit confused because it is willing to see
    schools who have filled an--or fill a historical mission, and
    educates a large percentage of low-income, first generation
    college students face hardship. Yet, it continues to prop up
    low-performing and unscrupulous for-profits. So, I want to
    touch on a line of questioning that Ms. Bonamici started. You
    said that the decision is provisional, but it still does not
    make a lot of sense to me. In fact, the decision to re-
    recognize and ignore the thorough analysis conducted by your
    staff, who concluded that ACICS did not meet two important
    recognition criteria: competency and conflict of interest. So,
    are you aware that less than a month after you re-recognized
    ACICS, Education Corporation of America, a large for-profit
    chain accredited by ACICS closed 70 campuses in 18 States that
    enrolled 1,900 students--19,000 students? Are you aware of
    that?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congresswoman, with regard, broadly,
    to ACICS, we, again, followed the judge's order to consider
    36,000 pages of information that had not been considered by the
    previous administration and--
        Ms. ADAMS. So, you are aware?
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. the report, to which you are
    referring, did--also did not take into account that
    information, so.
        Ms. ADAMS. Okay. Madam Secretary, are you aware of that?
    Can you say yes or no?
        Secretary DEVOS. I am aware of the process that we went
    through to recognize and reinstate ACICS.
        Ms. ADAMS. Oh, okay. All right. Well, let me move on. I am
    not going to--you are not going to give me a yes or no, so. Are
    you aware that in the year leading up to your decision to re-
    recognize ACICS, 61 accredited schools were closed, 61?
        Secretary DEVOS. Again, Congresswoman, I--we followed the
    process that--we followed a very thorough process in
    reexamining ACICS's ability to accredit, and are confident that
    the process was done accurately, particularly given the court
    order to consider--
        Ms. ADAMS. All right.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. 36,000 pages of unconsidered
    information.
        Ms. ADAMS. What then is the justification for not seeking
    input from the Statutory Advisory Committee with the sole
    function of providing a policy recommendation to you, primarily
    relating to accreditation and the accreditor?
        Secretary DEVOS. I do not--
        Ms. ADAMS. And I only have a few seconds.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, again--
        Ms. ADAMS. You cannot give me--Okay.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. we have--we underwent a very
    thorough process.
        Ms. ADAMS. All right. Let me just say that the answers that
    you have provided reveal a fundamental lack of concern for the
    tens of thousands of students that were taken advantage of
    because of shoddy oversight by ACICS and, Mr. Chairman, I think
    it would be nice if we had a Department that actually puts
    students first, particularly our students who view higher
    education as their ticket out of poverty. I was one of those.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Taylor?
        Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, you
    did not get--you have not had a chance to answer a lot of
    questions. Is there anything you want to add to fill out, maybe
    round out an answer to a question so far?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, there have been a number of things
    on which I was not able to really comment, and I think it is
    difficult if issues are being conflated and I did not--I also
    am here not to answer multiple choice questions, but really to
    have an exchange on a number of issues that are of mutual
    concern to all of us. Our concern is about students, and so--
        Mr. TAYLOR. Sure.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. I will try to address them as
    I need to, again. Thanks. Thanks for the opportunity.
        Mr. TAYLOR. All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Well, I,
    you know--and I think what is of mutual concern to all of us
    is, certainly, the rising cost of college, and so something
    that we have found, in Texas, is that dual credit classes make
    a huge impact. If a student takes a dual credit class at the
    high school level, they have a higher percentage of--they have
    a higher GPA in college. They graduate sooner. They graduate
    with less debt, and they are more likely to graduate from
    college at all. So, rigor in high school makes a difference in
    college graduation rates, and I think that everybody here cares
    about more children successfully finishing high school and then
    going on successfully getting a college degree and being
    educated.
        I think that is what everybody in this committee is really
    committed toward, and so dual--again, going back to dual
    credit, dual credit is--has been very successful in my time in
    the Texas legislature, all through legislation, to make sure
    that students that took dual credit classes would receive
    funding from the State of Texas, and I have seen some really
    great innovations at home.
        I will highlight one of my districts, Allen Independent
    School District. They have--actually, they are building a dual
    credit academy that would actually provide an associate's
    degree when the student finishes high school, with their
    community college, and so we are--and that actually saves the
    taxpayer money because you are already paying for that high
    school degree, and so, if they graduate with an associate's
    degree, you are that much better off.
        One of the things that I have had discussions with, on both
    sides of the aisle, is having the Department of Education
    recognize high schools, like Allen Independent School District,
    that are actually doing a good job, having more dual credit
    classes. Have you given any thought on how the Department of
    Education can participate in recognizing schools that are doing
    a good job across the country, on a State-by-State basis, that
    are doing a good job on dual credit?
        Secretary DEVOS. Sure. Sure. Well, we had talked about this
    a bit, and I think it is a great idea that--one that we should
    look into to, perhaps, recognize creativity in this area, in a
    new way. It is not an area that we have had any kind of formal
    recognition in, but I would be happy to work with you to
    consider a program such as that.
        Mr. TAYLOR. All right. Well, it is certainly something, I
    think, that is important, you know, for our country. We need to
    have more people who are highly educated, and I think that
    clearly rigor in high school means results in college, and dual
    credit is definitely, without any doubt, has a definite
    positive impact that way. So, I look forward to--
        Secretary DEVOS. Thank you.
        Mr. TAYLOR [continuing]. working with you on that. Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey,
    Mr. Norcross?
        Mr. NORCROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary. Thank
    you for coming here today, and I agree with our colleagues that
    we are all looking to create an education system that is better
    for our children, and I think one of the ways we can do that is
    making sure the teachers, along with administrators and
    certainly the kids, work toward that direction in working
    together.
        So, one of the things that I have known from my history,
    previous to coming here to Congress, is that a relationship
    between the employer and the employee works best when they work
    cooperatively. So, one of the things that you recently talked
    about is that you are thankful for the Supreme Court decision,
    in Janus, because it freed up those who believe, or have been
    coerced to be participants in something they did not want to
    participate in.
        In reality, teachers are being targeted, spammed, coerced
    by groups, such as Mackinaw, the center that you probably know
    something about, and public policy from the Freedom Foundation.
    They have called. They have emailed. They have advertised. They
    have gone door to door, trying to get teachers to leave what
    they believe is a fair foundation for learning, and that is
    their union.
        If teachers are choosing to join unions, why are the two
    foundations--that your families associate with--the top givers
    to those groups that are trying to get people to leave what
    they believe in, and that is joining a union. Why would you do
    that?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, I am an advocate for
    Freedom Across the Board, and we have a very significant
    proposal to help teachers exercise more freedom in their own--
        Mr. NORCROSS. By coercing?
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. personal, professional
    development.
        Mr. NORCROSS. If everything that you spoke against is
    about--
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, can I please--can I please
    finish--
        Mr. NORCROSS. You can, but I want to make sure you answer
    the question that I am asking--
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I am--
        Mr. NORCROSS [continuing]. and that is one of the relation;
    to call, to email, to advertise, and go door to door. That is
    not an educational program. That is coercing, and in your
    Statement you talked about that. So, that is what I would love
    to have you answer.
        Secretary DEVOS. And, Congressman, the proposal that our
    administration has put forward would allow teachers to
    determine their own professional development, and to take
    advantage of developing themselves with autonomy, and not be
    assigned to do so by their district or their building or
    whatever, but allow them to continue--
        Mr. NORCROSS. What does that have to do with joining
    unions? They are not being assigned to join a union.
        Secretary DEVOS. In--and the Janis decision has allowed
    teachers to decide whether to be part of a union or not.
        Mr. NORCROSS. Absolutely.
        Secretary DEVOS. So, I am talking about the proposal that
    we have put forward to elevate teachers and their profession,
    and to continue to help them in their own development, to
    develop a mentorship and residency program--
        Mr. NORCROSS. And what does that have to do with joining
    unions? You are not answering that.
        Secretary DEVOS. It does not have anything. It has--it has
    to do with supporting teachers.
        Mr. NORCROSS. So, why are you--why are you answering that
    when we talk about--
        Secretary DEVOS. It has to do with supporting--teachers,
    and that is what we are--
        Mr. NORCROSS. But I am not asking about supporting
    teachers. You took a public position suggesting that joining a
    union of their own free will was something that you did not
    believe in. So, you are not answering me--
        Secretary DEVOS. No, I said that--I said I was pleased that
    they have--now have the ability to decide whether or not--
        Mr. NORCROSS. They have already had that ability, as you
    know, but you, through your foundations that you are associated
    with, have coerced, have sent letters, have gone door to door,
    doing exactly what you said they should not do. So, I am
    finding it very difficult to--
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, when I took this job, I
    resigned from anything and everything outside of this job. I am
    focused--
        Mr. NORCROSS. So, you no longer believe that?
        Secretary DEVOS. I am focused on students--
        Mr. NORCROSS. So, you no longer believe in that?
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. and I am focused on
    supporting teachers and great teachers to be able to advance in
    their jobs.
        Mr. NORCROSS. So, do you believe the teachers should have
    the ability to join a union?
        Secretary DEVOS. Clearly, they should--
        Mr. NORCROSS. Okay. So, you believe in democracy?
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. and they should have an
    ability to not, if they decide not to.
        Mr. NORCROSS. We agree with that. It is called democracy.
    It is something we do here in this country, pretty well, but do
    you still believe--you told me you have resigned from the
    foundations, that you no longer believe in coercion because
    that foundation helped pay those organizations, to call, knock
    on doors, coerce. Do you still believe in that?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, I am here for one job, and
    one job--
        Mr. NORCROSS. Do you still believe in that? It is a very
    simple question. It is not multiple choice.
        Secretary DEVOS. And it is a very simple answer.
        Mr. NORCROSS. It is yes or no, and I want to be respectful,
    but you also have to respect us--
        Secretary DEVOS. I am here to support students and their
    futures.
        Mr. NORCROSS [continuing]. in actually answering the
    questions, and that is the part that you and I can agree with.
    We are here to try to ask questions and get answers, and that
    is the way we work together, but when you start answering
    something I did not ask, that is very disrespectful. I yield
    back the balance of my time.
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright?
        Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary.
    Thank you for being here today. First, I want to applaud your
    dedication to freedom and education. Not only does that result
    in more choices, but also more innovation, which, I think, our
    system desperately needs. I also want to offer to you that it
    is not your responsibility to educate students. You are not in
    the classroom. That is a responsibility, first and foremost, of
    parents, then of teachers, administrators, schools, under the
    guidance primarily, of local and State governments, not the
    Federal Government.
        You can offer opportunity, guidelines, even restrictions,
    but your job is to carry out Federal laws that relates to your
    Department as determined by the President of the United States.
    Would you agree with that?
        Secretary DEVOS. I would agree with that.
        Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. I wanted to speak just a moment on
    higher education. I know you have already discussed this at
    great length, but we had a hearing not too long ago on this
    that was mentioned earlier, and I was very disappointed that
    the panel's consensus seemed to be that the answer was more
    Federal money. There was a reluctance to even discuss how
    colleges and universities might lower their cost, and, as you
    know, there has really been no incentive for higher education
    to lower its cost, especially when the Federal Government is
    guaranteeing all of these loans. So, can you speak to that, and
    how we might entice or get, you know, colleges and universities
    to look at that side of the equation?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, it is a complex
    question for sure, and it is a concern. And I have a graph here
    that I think very graphically illustrates the rise in cost,
    from $7,000 for a 4-year degree in 1980 to now, on average,
    $19,000 in public universities. So, it confirms what you have
    already raised the spectra of. I think we start by helping
    students with more information and giving them more tools, when
    making a decision about where to go to school, and part of our
    next gen initiative is to add information to the college
    scorecard. That will allow students to compare, at a program
    level, by institution, what the cost of that education is going
    to be and what their likelihood is in terms of earning
    potential, at a program level, which is going to be far more
    valuable than the information that we currently have, which
    just gives an average for a school, which does not tell you the
    dramatic differences between, say, if you are a history major
    perhaps or an engineer, and that is one tool that I think that
    we can provide students.
        I think we need to work together, and I look forward to
    proposals that might be advanced from this body around how to
    hold schools accountable or how to have them have some skin in
    the game. I have not yet heard a really good proposal advance
    that might get after this, but the reality is that there is no
    incentive to restrain costs.
        Mr. WRIGHT. Right. Thank you. My last question has to do
    with something that also has already been discussed, and that
    is, I know that you are as dedicated as anyone to preparing the
    next generation of work force, and that entails all kinds of
    things and education. In my district, we have at least two
    school districts that have career centers, and it is really
    cutting edge, innovative stuff, and I know there is a lot of
    these around the country, but I would invite you to visit
    someday. I think you would be impressed because high school
    students are graduating with State certifications to go right
    into jobs, and everything from being certified welders to
    certified phlebotomists, one of them being Barbara and
    Mansfield, is starting a new program to teach high school
    students how to operate and maintain drones because that is an
    emerging market demand. And I want to know what your Department
    and what your budget is doing that would help these
    collaborative efforts like that, so that we can help educate
    these kids that are not going to go to college.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, we have a couple of areas in which
    we have focused--proposed focused resources. One is around the
    Education Freedom Scholarships Initiative. Programs could be
    created in States to really enhance career and technical
    education options for students, and provide new ways to do
    that, provide transportation dollars for students. And then, on
    the other side, we have in the budget the $1.3 billion around
    the Perkins Five and to support continued implementation of
    these opportunities, both at the high school and post high
    school level, and then a pre-apprenticeship program that we
    have proposed to the tune of $60 million. That would help
    students that are--that need to actually come back to school
    before they can even be considered for an apprenticeship, but
    the whole notion of career and technical education
    opportunities is one that States have begun to address in
    specific ways.
        There are many more opportunities to do what is necessary,
    both for students and for their opportunities, in terms of
    employment, and the best way to do that, I think, is a
    cooperative effort on a regional level, between employers and
    educators, really looking at and addressing the needs of that
    region.
        Mr. WRIGHT. Right. Thank you very much and, Mr. Chairman, I
    yield the remainder of my time to Dr. Foxx.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        Mr. WRIGHT. Sorry. I tried.
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentlelady from Washington, Ms.
    Jayapal?
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary.
    Thank you for being here today. I wanted to just start
    somewhere where I think we would be on the same page, which is
    the mission Statement of the Department of Education. Can you
    just tell us the one sentence mission Statement of the
    Department of Education?
        Secretary DEVOS. The mission Statement of Department of
    Education is to help students be prepared for their futures, a
    mission that I am focused upon.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Okay, good. I will just read it. I am not
    trying to trap you here, so. It is to promote student
    achievement in preparation for global competitiveness by
    fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. Do
    you agree with that?
        Secretary DEVOS. I do.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Great. So, putting students first is essential
    to fulfilling the mission, as you have mentioned in your
    Statements, and that includes the Department of Education's
    role in setting standards for the schools that take Federal
    student aid money to ensure that students are actually getting
    that quality education through a process of accreditation,
    which, for people out there, is sort of like the Good
    Housekeeping Seal of Approval in order to get government money.
    And so we have got to make sure that we get this right because
    if the standards are not strong enough, and if the institutions
    are just out to scam students and taxpayers or do not provide a
    good education, then everybody loses. But here is the thing
    about accreditation agencies, they are actually funded through
    fees from the very institutions that they regulate. So, there
    is potential for real conflicts of interest here, and that is
    why it is important that the State Department sets up some
    standards to hold them to account, and the standards have to
    make sure that we are not playing into the old adage of ``the
    fox is guarding the henhouse.'' Right? You know that phrase,
    ``The fox is guarding the henhouse,'' means that someone who
    cannot be trusted has been chosen to protect someone. Kind of
    like a bank robber guarding a bank.
        Okay, so earlier this year, you convened a committee to
    rewrite these basic standards in a process called Negotiated
    Rulemaking. Out of the 17 voting members on this committee, how
    many slots were allocated to representatives of students, since
    we are putting students first?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congresswoman, let me just say that
    I am very proud and excited about this process--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. I know you are, you have said that. I just
    wanted to know how many slots on the committee were allocated
    to students.
        Secretary DEVOS. Negotiators were selected by a career
    team--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. How many slots were allocated to students out
    of 17? If you don't know the answer, I am happy to provide it
    to you.
        Secretary DEVOS. The negotiating team was put together--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. I am just going to, I am sorry, Secretary--
        Secretary DEVOS. Was put together by the career staff--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. We are only given 5 minutes so let me reclaim
    my time. I asked you a very specific question. Secretary, let
    me answer the question that you haven't answered, which is 2
    slots out of 17 were provided to representatives of students.
    How many slots were provided to attorneys general? State
    attorneys general?
        Secretary DEVOS. Again, Congresswoman, the negotiating team
    was assembled by career staff in accordance to the Negotiated
    Rulemaking process--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. So the answer to the question, the answer to
    the question is no State attorneys general were on the
    committee. Why is that important? Because State attorneys
    general, like mine, Bob Ferguson in Washington State, are some
    of the biggest players in actually protecting students from
    low-quality institutions.
        Now, I want to go on to talk about the actual list. As I
    look at the list of who you appointed, and I understand what
    the process was, there were essentially--the remaining slots
    were owners of several for-profit colleges, two major
    accreditors of for-profit colleges, and other industry
    representatives, and in my mind that is sort of like putting
    the foxes in charge of the henhouse.
        So, let us just talk about the rules as an example of what
    happened out of this committee. Under the new rules, if a
    school stops living up to its accreditor's standards, in many
    cases, because it is providing a subpar education, how long
    would the accrediting agency have to take action and inform
    students that there is a problem?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congresswoman, as you well know, the
    Negotiated Rulemaking process requires that--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. I am just asking you how long they would take.
        Secretary DEVOS. I am not going to comment on the specific
    recommendations of--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Okay, well, let me--
        Secretary DEVOS. The commission--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. That is fine--
        Secretary DEVOS. I am going to talk about the next steps in
    the process.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. That is not my question and I control the
    time, Madam Secretary, with all due respect, so--
        Secretary DEVOS. I guess you don't really want to have a
    dialog.
        Ms. JAYAPAL. My question was, my question was how long
    would the accrediting agency have to take action and inform
    students that there is a problem? The answer to that question,
    with the rule that you are proposing, is 4 years. Four years is
    the time that a student is in college. The entire time they
    could be at an agency that is subpar, that is taking their
    money, that is taking taxpayer dollars, and yet not even know
    that is the case. So, let us look at--
        Secretary DEVOS. Of course you will have an opportunity to
    comment during the public commenting period--
        Ms. JAYAPAL. Let us look--you will be able to do that if
    the chairman wants to give you time at the end of my time, but
    I control my time, so let us look at another rule here, which
    is, it makes it easier for schools to buy out campuses that
    shut their doors to students while leaving taxpayers on the
    hook for outstanding debt.
        So, Wall Street investors could come in, they could take
    over a struggling campus, they could make a profit from that
    buy-out and then face very limited consequences to actually
    educate students who paid tens of thousands of dollars. Madam
    Secretary, I know my time is over, but I would just say that we
    have to make sure that the Department of Education is
    protecting our students and our taxpayer dollars, and these
    rules do not do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Secretary, did you want to
    comment?
        Secretary DEVOS. Sorry?
        Chairman SCOTT. Did you want to comment?
        Secretary DEVOS. I just wanted to comment that this process
    will now unfold to a draft rule being released and that you
    will have ample time to weigh into during the public comment
    period. That is what the rulemaking process does and that is
    what we intend to do. And so, if there are issues about which
    you disagree or others disagree, there will be ample time to
    weigh into that. The negotiators did a great job. I am proud of
    the work that they did. I am proud that they reached consensus
    on a number of different issues that were very wide-ranging and
    difficult, and I am looking forward to the next steps in that
    process.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin,
    Mr. Grothman.
        Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you for being here. And one of the
    things I wasn't initially going to comment on here today, but I
    am a little bit surprised, I am glad you haven't taken the bait
    and felt that the Federal Government should be a lot more in
    education than it is, and that you understand our Constitution.
    I think it bothers me that so many people got out of our school
    systems and come to see me as a Congressman to help improve
    their local school districts and they have, first of all, no
    respect for our constitution and the authority the States and
    locals have, and almost as sad, they seem to have a complete
    contempt for their local school districts and State governments
    and that they want you to send more bureaucrats to run around
    and look over the shoulders of local administrators, local
    school boards, so, thank you for your holding your ground.
        Do you have any suggestions what we can do to make sure
    that the next generation of Americans understands the role of
    Federal Government, the limited role of Federal Government in
    education under our constitution?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, I think there is a
    great opportunity for all schools to take seriously the, I
    think, responsibility to prepare young people to be good
    citizens and to learn about their Nation's history in a way
    that is current and relevant and practical, and that gives them
    a foundation on which to then go out and form their opinions
    and debate ideas.
        Mr. GROTHMAN. We have talked before about Ability One
    programs and State programs in which people with different
    abilities than ourselves, have an opportunity to experience the
    satisfaction of work, the ability to earn their own paycheck,
    and the ability to have a setting in which they are able to
    socialize with so many people. Right now there are people out
    there who want to get rid of these, what used to be called
    shelter workshops and now we call work centers; I wonder if you
    could comment, in the future if there is a direction the
    Department would like to go with regard to protecting, not just
    these work centers, but even more, the people who work in them?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, I know that you have a
    great heart for these individuals and some of the opportunities
    that are within your district and with regard to the specific
    guidance that you are asking about, we are still in the process
    of evaluating and reviewing it, and know that we share the same
    goal of ensuring that all individuals have, particularly
    individuals with disabilities, have the opportunity to work in
    an environment that is challenging for them and that works for
    them and that they will have choices in that prospect as well.
    So, we will continue to work together to try to meet that end.
        Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay, there are so many tens of thousands of
    people who enjoy working in their current settings and I know
    it is so difficult, you get this big job and the number of
    rules and laws that you are responsible for and the number of
    employees you are responsible for is overwhelming, do you think
    you would ever be able to take time out of your busy schedule
    and tour one of these facilities and see firsthand what is
    going on?
        Secretary DEVOS. I would love to be able to. I know our
    assistant secretary, Johnny Collett, has and has said that he
    really appreciated his visit and he gained much greater
    understanding of the places that you have been referring to.
        Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay, now I would like to switch gears
    entirely to dual enrollment programs and we have got to do what
    we can to get people in the world of work without excessive
    student loan debt and, quite frankly, the earlier they get to
    work in their life, the quicker they will be able to afford a
    new house, the quicker they will be able to get married and
    have children.
        Do you think an advanced degree can guarantee that students
    are receiving a high-quality education that can lead to a good
    job in their field, or do you have a comment in general on what
    we can do to facilitate dual enrollment programs?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, this administration does support
    much more robust dual enrollment opportunities as well as
    supporting a variety of career paths that, heretofore, really
    haven't been supported in the ways that we think they should
    be, and that there is opportunity for so many students to
    pursue a really meaningful career, that does not require a 4-
    year college or university degree. And so we will continue to
    support all of those initiatives that enhance those
    opportunities and support States and regions in their efforts
    to specifically address those opportunities in their
    geographies.
        Mr. GROTHMAN. I appreciate you standing up to this special
    interest and there is money to be made in standing in the way
    of this dual enrollment programs and the accreditation, but I
    appreciate you standing up to the people who think the
    accreditation group comes first and the students come second.
    So, thank you again for coming over here today.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Morelle.
        Mr. MORELLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this important hearing. And thank you, Madam Secretary,
    for your service and for being here this morning, this
    afternoon.
        Since 2014 more than half a million students have been
    displaced by college closures, and of those, just shy of 85
    percent of about 425,000 attended for-profit colleges. In my
    home State of New York, there were over 13,000 students
    displaced by for-profit college closures. More concerning are
    the high percentage of women, Pell Grant recipients, and
    minorities impacted by these closures. Just in my district, in
    2015 the closure of the for-profit school, Everest Institute,
    left 462 students in chaos.
        Many students attending for-profit colleges are working
    adults with families, often living paycheck to paycheck, while
    trying to invest in their future and provide a better life for
    their families, nontraditional students in many cases. And when
    the schools shut down there are students who fall on even
    harder times perpetuating the cycle of poverty that many are
    trying to escape in the first place.
        Just last month, 24 schools in the Argosy Chain closed
    stranding nearly 10,000 students. These closures are yet
    another, in a long line of major school closings, and aren't
    likely to be the last. The handling of these closures are poor
    examples of leadership and with all due respect, I think the
    Department has missed multiple opportunities to protect
    students from the hardships of college campus closures, so I do
    want to discuss those issues.
        With previous for-profit college closures such as ITT Tech,
    the Department required them to post the $250 million letter of
    credit to cover costs associated with closing the institution.
    According to the Department's pre-acquisition review paperwork
    at the time, Dream Center purchased Argosy Campus in 2017. The
    Department had roughly a $100 million letter of credit on file
    to cover liabilities if the institutions closed, which
    obviously it had come to a point where that letter of credit
    would be important.
        Was the letter of credit on file with Argosy on the last
    day of its closure, do you know?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, let me just say that schools
    closing is always unfortunate and regrettable, and our focus
    with school closures is on students and helping them transfer
    to another program if they are able to. We are working closely
    with every school that is in the process of closing, or has
    closed, to ensure that those funds that were retained are used
    appropriately and that students have every opportunity to
    continue their studies if they choose to and if programs are
    found for them to be able to continue.
        Mr. MORELLE. You know--and I appreciate that. Do you know,
    though, in response and directly as it relates to my question,
    do you know whether there was a letter of credit--
        Secretary DEVOS. I will be happy to get back with you if
    you submit a question for the record on that.
        Mr. MORELLE. Okay, I appreciate that. I will say that I
    think it is hard for us to know. There is a lack of
    transparency around this, however, as evidenced by the
    Department's court filings in November of 2018, the Department
    either gave back or let all outstanding Dream Center letters of
    credit lapse and had no letters of credit on file as of the
    closure and I find--obviously, I find that troubling. Someone--
    I dealt with letters of credit, insurance and collateral as a
    chairman of the Insurance committee in the New York State
    Assembly, and find this, frankly, if it is true, financially
    irresponsible.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit the
    following: court filing from November 19, 2018, into the
    record, showing that no letter of credit was on file with the
    Department in November of 2018.
        Chairman SCOTT. Without objection.
        Mr. MORELLE. If I might also, I want to just talk about
    making hard choices to protect taxpayer dollars which all of
    us, I know, are very, very committed to, but I am concerned
    that the allegiance lies with corporations. When there has been
    an unwillingness to cut funding from critical programs that
    benefit students and taxpayers. And I am afraid that there is
    too little required of corporate actors and handing them tens
    of millions of taxpayer dollars from the Department is
    apparently, according to the filing, not responsible letters of
    credit.
        Letters of credit help to guarantee that if there are
    closings that we will have protections for them. And I want to
    know, Madam Secretary, if you will commit to publishing monthly
    reports indicating whether schools have letters of credit and
    whether the Department has those letters of credit on hand and
    how much they are worth?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, let me first say that
    the school to which you are referring did have appropriate
    letters of credit, and we are continuing to work closely with
    schools that are in financial trouble and let me just say
    that--
        Mr. MORELLE. Ma'am, I am sorry, you said you didn't know,
    but you did. I am sorry, are you amending your answer that they
    did have a letter of credit?
        Secretary DEVOS. The appropriate letters of credit have
    been in place for the institutions that you are referring to.
        Mr. MORELLE. Well, but the court filings that I just
    submitted into the record indicate, and these are the
    Department's court filings in conjunction with creditors, that
    the Department either gave back or let all outstanding Dream
    Center letters of credit lapse and that there were no letters
    of credit on file as of the date of the closure.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I will be happy to clarify with my
    staff and ensure that you have the information that you want
    and need.
        Mr. MORELLE. Well, I would like--I appreciate that, and
    obviously, what I would like to know in addition to that is if
    there was no letter of credit, what steps you would take to
    make sure that the liabilities were covered, or if not, who
    intends to cover those liabilities, and if there is a reduction
    in the face value of the letter of credit, how you made
    judgments around any payments or any exposure; because, I
    assume at some point someone else is responsible for it,
    whether that is the individual student, or taxpayers, I don't
    think I understand. So I would like very much some followup
    from you as to what those letters of credit are, which are
    protections for students, and frankly, having read some of the
    stories about students who are lapsed and having spoken with
    many of them in my office, both in my time as a State
    legislator and now, it is incredibly troubling.
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. MORELLE. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Kansas, Mr.
    Watkins.
        Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary DeVos,
    thank you for your patriotism and your leadership. It is truly
    an inspiration. I want to start off today by telling you that
    education is a family profession; my mother, my little sister,
    my grandfather, were all educators and it is so very important
    to my family as well as the district that I represent, Kansas
    Second Congressional District.
        So, all education is career education and I know it is
    critically important to each one of us to increase educational
    opportunities for every single one of our constituents. I
    believe our Nation should foster an all of the above education
    environment, one that is inclusive of all types of learning,
    institutions, schools, colleges, universities.
        As a former student and a current veteran, I know firsthand
    that America's career education can empower individuals with
    opportunities for lifelong success. Through their earned
    benefits from years of military service, student veterans have
    a wealth of choices available to them for their higher
    education and career ambitions. Rightfully so, career education
    colleges like Wichita Technical Institute in my hometown of
    Topeka, for instance, represent pathways for so many student
    veterans to achieve their American dream.
        So, ma'am, I have a question. Every day we hear from
    employers seeking to hire more workers but are unable to find
    them. As a result, many of them are looking to apprenticeships
    to meet the growing labor market demands. What are some common
    questions that you hear from employers who are interested in
    starting an apprenticeship or for work force development
    programs?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, thanks for the question, and
    let me just add to your first Statement about your family and
    how important education is. My mom was a public school teacher
    as well and so we share that.
        Our focus continues to be on supporting multiple pathways
    to great careers and when I speak with employers, most often
    their question is, how can we engage with educators and make
    sure that students are prepared for the opportunities we have
    right now, today. And that is my continued urging to both
    employers and educators, is that they break down the silos that
    have existed and begin working together concertedly because
    there are such tremendous opportunities. And those
    opportunities really vary region by region, State by State, so
    there is no one size fits all approach.
        But we need to from this level, make sure that the
    impediments that are there, are broken down to the greatest
    extent possible and then supported through the programs that
    are working and programs that aren't should be revised or
    eliminated and allow the States and local communities to really
    drive what is needed at the most local level.
        Mr. WATKINS. That is very inspiring to hear, thank you for
    that answer. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of
    by time to Ranking Member Foxx.
        Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. Madam Secretary, the
    President's budget request asked for an increase of 133.1
    million over last year's funding levels to administer the
    student aid programs. The Stated reason for this increase is to
    help implement your next generation's financial services
    environment vision, which will update your technical and
    operational infrastructure to better support students with
    high-quality service. This all sounds encouraging, however,
    your agency has been met with lawsuits at every step of the
    procurement, including now.
        These disputes will likely delay your ability to proceed
    forward before the current student loans services contracts
    expire. There are over 34 million direct loan borrowers owing
    over 1.1 trillion who will be affected by the decisions your
    agency makes this year.
        I am monitoring the situation closely because students and
    their families deserve to know how this will impact their
    lives. From now on I expect regular updates from you and your
    staff about this ongoing procurement during which I expect to
    hear specific and realistic alternative timelines to
    implementing Next Gen.
        While I appreciated Next Gen as a prospective solution,
    Congress needs to know our programs will continue to be carried
    through without interruption while you are working on
    implementation. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary DEVOS. Yes, ma'am, we hear you.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from Minnesota,
    Ms. Omar.
        Ms. OMAR. Thank you, Chairman. Madam Secretary, countless
    news sources have reported on the conflicts of interest that
    run rampant through your top aides, especially those advising
    you on higher ed and loan servicing. When responding to
    questions about these conflicts you have failed to adequately
    convince Congress and the American people that these conflicts
    do not interfere with the billions of taxpayer dollars flowing
    from Education to corporate interests. Today I would like to
    better understand your decisions for selecting aides and
    ensuring that their conflicts do not harm taxpayers.
        Last May, four of my colleagues on this committee sent your
    general counsel a request for information about conflicts of
    interest surrounding your $2 billion Next Gen loan servicing
    solicitation. Given that this solicitation is given, I would
    like some information about the team that is leading it. Does
    Dr. A. Wade Johnson, is he the one that is spearheading this
    solicitation?
        Secretary DEVOS. Dr. Johnson is head of the Next Gen
    Initiative.
        Ms. OMAR. All right. According to the New York Times
    investigation, Dr. Johnson was the founder and chief executive
    of a private student loan company, Reunion Student Loan
    Financing Corporation, before assuming his official role at the
    department, is that correct?
        Secretary DEVOS. I--that probably is correct but--
        Ms. OMAR. Yes, it is.
        Secretary DEVOS. But let me just interject and say--
        Ms. OMAR. I would like to continue.
        Secretary DEVOS. And I would like to make clear that--
        Ms. OMAR. We will give you some time--
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. all of the individuals--
        Ms. OMAR. I will get to it, thank you so much. Dr. Johnson
    was also the executive at the two financial services companies,
    First Data Corporation and TSYS. Additionally, Dr. Johnson has
    hired at least one other STSYS veteran, Mr. Patrick Fox. Have
    any of Dr. Johnson's previous employers bid on elements of Next
    Gen's solicitation?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congresswoman, all of my staff, all of my
    team at the Department of Education and Federal Student Aid has
    gone through their ethics process, and takes their ethics
    obligations very seriously. We don't have conflicts and we will
    not be conflicted. We have continued to have a robust screening
    process and can stand and be very resolute about that.
        Ms. OMAR. Hmm. So, given that there is about $2 billion per
    year in taxpayer dollars flowing through this program, will you
    commit to releasing communication between the procurement team
    and any of Dr. Johnson's former employees?
        Secretary DEVOS. All of the procurement is walled off from
    the--
        Ms. OMAR. That would just be yes or no. Will you be
    committed to releasing any communication between Dr. Johnson
    and his former employers?
        Secretary DEVOS. Not to releasing internal communication,
    but the procurement team is walled off from the rest of the
    team and the procurement process is very definitely prescribed
    as to how it has to happen.
        Ms. OMAR. That has not clearly answered my question. The
    Federal acquisition regulations have a section on conflict of
    interest. It States the general rule is to avoid strictly any
    conflict of interest or even the appearance of conflict of
    interest in government contract relations.
        While many Federal laws and regulations place restrictions
    and actions of Government personnel, their official contact
    must, in addition, be such that they would not have the
    reluctance to make a full public disclosure of their actions.
    You seem to have reluctance to make a full public disclosure of
    the actions of the head of the Department's largest single
    procurement team, despite their being an obvious appearance of
    conflict of interest. How is your denial to release
    communication in line with extremely high conflict of interest
    standards that is required by Federal law?
        Secretary DEVOS. The individual you have referred to is not
    part of the acquisition or procurement team.
        Ms. OMAR. Okay. But we need the communication that is
    happening between the procurement team and the employers of Dr.
    Johnson.
        Secretary DEVOS. As I told you, that process is walled off
    from any other process.
        Ms. OMAR. Well, the public believes that there is a
    conflict of interest. The investigations say that there is a
    conflict of interest. If there is the appearance of conflict of
    interest, the American people have the right to know and make
    sure that there isn't a conflict of interest. Thank you for
    your time. I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Meuser.
        Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much,
    Secretary DeVos, nice to have you with us. Thank you as well
    for your many years of work, philanthropy, and support of
    educating America's young people in private schools and in
    public schools. In Pennsylvania's Ninth District, where I
    represent, and I think in all districts, the education of our
    young people is an enormously important component for economic
    growth and the quality of life.
        I know your Department appreciates the importance of
    helping students explore the many pathways to success whether
    that be a 4-year university, career and technical education, or
    vocational schools. We do need to assure that there is an
    effective plan in place so students can make choices and have
    options that best suit their skills and interests.
        Your Department has demonstrated a commitment to this goal
    by strengthening CTE, which is very appreciated, and
    implementing short-term Pell Grants. I am certain that those
    initiatives have benefited many families throughout my
    district, so I appreciate it.
        Also in my district, we have a school, Conrad Wieser School
    District, created the Ben Franklin Science Research Institute
    that fosters STEM education. Secretary, I believe you are
    familiar with this program from your time serving as the chair
    of the Philanthropy Roundtable. They are familiar with you, and
    I certainly appreciate your support of this innovative program
    as do many. Currently the program uses nonprofit funding to
    purchase research equipment and opportunities to showcase
    individual research.
        They are in the process, presently, of applying for the
    Educational Improvement Tax Credit, which is a Pennsylvania
    program that offers corporations tax credits for donating to
    organizations for worthwhile STEM programs such as this. I know
    that the Pennsylvania's EITC credit will help this program grow
    and improve. Can you speak as to how your Education Freedom
    Scholarship proposal would allow schools and initiatives such
    as this across the Nation to create similar opportunities for
    their students?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, thanks, Congressman. First the
    Education Freedom Scholarship program will improve education
    for all students, students who can participate and make
    different choices for their education. And what it would do is
    provide States like Pennsylvania, or any other State that opted
    to be a part of it, create new options and new opportunities
    so, the programs that you are referring to could be part of a
    menu of choices given to students in Pennsylvania for their
    futures and to find their right niche for pursuing their career
    and their meaningful future.
        Mr. MEUSER. Great. They will be very helpful, and they will
    be put to some very important use for I am sure thousands and
    thousands of students. And I, as a Member of Congress, do look
    forward to making the Education Freedom Scholarships a reality.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Dr. Foxx.
        Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. I would like to followup on
    that conversation about the Education Freedom Scholarships.
        Madam Secretary, I want to begin by correcting something
    that a couple of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    have raised regarding the Education Freedom Scholarships
    proposal. They are disputing your argument that your proposal
    would not take any funds from public schools. My colleagues
    seem to believe that individuals' income belongs to the
    government and should be considered ``public money.'' I could
    not disagree more.
        We as a people have agreed to pay some of our income to the
    government in the form of taxes, but that does not mean the
    government is entitled to anyone's income. The Secretary's
    proposal gives taxpayers greater freedom in how their income,
    their property, is used to support education. If a State
    chooses to establish a program and a taxpayer chooses to
    support it with their income, we should support that choice. We
    should not claim ownership of that taxpayer's hard-earned
    money.
        Madam Secretary, would you like to say anything else about
    that?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, thanks, Congresswoman Foxx. I concur
    with everything you have said. It is an inaccurate statement to
    say that it is taking public resources. These are voluntary
    contributions made to scholarship granting organizations to
    benefit kids, kids and their futures, and that's what it is all
    about.
        Mrs. FOXX. One more quick comment. You showed a great chart
    a while ago how much the cost and what it is considered a 4-
    year degree. I would only like to suggest that in 1980 it
    probably was a 4-year degree, and now it is a 6-year degree, so
    the cost is even greater.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Harder.
        Mr. HARDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary DeVos, thank
    you so much for coming to join our committee today.
        I wanted to start by asking you to confirm a statement that
    you made on the subject of literacy. I think in 2017 for
    National Literacy Month you said, ``Reading opens kids' minds
    and expands their world. Literacy is the foundation of learning
    and it's the starting point on the pathway to the American
    dream.'' Can you confirm that you made that statement?
        Secretary DEVOS. If you said I did, I probably did. You are
    reading from something, so. Sounds like something I would say.
        Mr. HARDER. I think it is on the website. Yes. Well, thank
    you. It sounds like something, I actually happen to really
    agree with that. I was a late bloomer on literacy; I was not a
    competent reader until second grade. But I personally benefited
    from some of the literacy programs funded at the Federal level,
    and so this is an issue that is very close to my heart.
        Do you know how many of our elementary and middle school
    kids currently are able to read at grade level, according to
    the most recent national report card, approximately how many?
        Secretary DEVOS. Not nearly enough. Not nearly enough. In
    fact, it is well below 50 percent.
        Mr. HARDER. I think it is about a third. Does that sound
    about right?
        Secretary DEVOS. That does sound about right, yes.
        Mr. HARDER. So I think we are in agreement about two
    things. One is that literacy is the foundation of learning, and
    second, that we are at a time where only one-third of our
    elementary and middle school kids can read at grade level.
        And so can you help explain to me why the budget that you
    proposed eliminates every single dedicated Federal literacy
    program, including the Innovative Approaches to Literacy, which
    provides books to school kids, and the LEARN Program, which
    helps our school districts develop comprehensive literacy
    programs, why would you cut those programs at a time like this?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, two things. First of all, we had to
    submit a budget that was 10 percent lower than the 2019
    enacted. And so we chose to focus on programs that were going
    to most broadly benefit the students who are most in need and
    most vulnerable, protecting Title IX, protecting IDEA funding,
    and protecting English as a second language funding.
        And to suggest that the Federal Government is going to
    ultimately solve problems of literacy would suggest that over
    the last 50 years we would have seen dramatic improvements in
    literacy. The fact is we have not. The fact is that there is a
    study that just came out from Harvard and Stanford this week
    that shows that 50 years, the differences in performance on
    math, reading, and science tests between disadvantaged and
    advantaged U.S. students have remained essentially unchanged
    for 50 years.
        Mr. HARDER. What Is the second reason?
        Secretary DEVOS. I didn't say a second.
        Mr. HARDER. You mentioned there were two reasons, one.
        Secretary DEVOS. I said the first thing is the budget we
    submitted. And second, there is this study that shows continued
    Federal funding to try to fix problems has not yielded the
    results that we all hoped for.
        So our proposal is to pivot and do something completely
    different. That is why we have proposed an Education Freedom
    Scholarship that will help.
        Mr. HARDER. Well, Secretary DeVos, and sorry for
    interrupting, I actually think this program's data is pretty
    clear. This program requires annual reports from its grant
    recipients, and children that benefit from access to reading
    materials from infancy to K through 12 have dramatically
    increased rates of literacy, which are directly tied to this
    program and its funding.
        So I don't understand why you think it is such a hard
    choice to cut every single Federal dedicated literacy program
    at a time when only one-third of our school kids can read.
        Secretary DEVOS. The reality is that where we are seeing
    the most gains in terms of student literacy is those States
    that have decided to focus in on this and have expected that
    kids read by third grade before being graduated on. We need to
    focus more on this, but those solutions are best done at the
    State and local level.
        We have continued to pour billions of dollars into Federal
    funding for education only to see results continue to remain
    stagnant at best, and in many cases decline, for the students
    who need the most help.
        Mr. HARDER. Well, Secretary DeVos, I hear your words and
    yet one of the programs that you cut, the LEARN Program, helps
    those States and local districts develop comprehensive literacy
    programs to actually solve this problem. And so, you know,
    look, I think what kills me about this isn't just the context
    of the fact that we are cutting some of the most critical
    programs to improve literacy, it is the hypocrisy of what I see
    from this Department. If you go on the website of the
    Department of Education right now, the picture is you reading a
    book to a kid. And that is phenomenal. And you have gone around
    the country reading books to kids, talking about the importance
    of literacy. But then you get back to Washington, you go into
    the cloak of bureaucracy in a back room somewhere and you cut
    every single program.
        Indeed, you actually eliminate every single program fully
    developed and fully dedicated toward addressing the problem
    that you are actually saying needs to be solved. And I think
    that hypocrisy is disappointing, shocking, and frankly, really
    heartbreaking at a time when we have some real challenges in
    our educational system.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Secretary DEVOS. And if I could just say that if these
    problems had been solved by the Federal Government we would
    have seen different results in the last 50 years. We have not.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
    Banks.
        Mr. BANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
    DeVos, for being here today.
        I want to start first with a conversation that you and I
    had before this committee a year ago related to education
    savings accounts for military families. I think both of us
    agreed at that time that our military families deserve the best
    education options possible, yet far too often we hear
    complaints from military families about the lack of options
    when they move from installation to installation. Some
    localities offering a better education and not having better
    options to choose.
        A year ago, when I introduced military education savings
    accounts you expressed before this committee that the funding
    source impact, using impact aid dollars, prevented you from
    supporting that legislative proposal. I took that opposition to
    heart, and at the time you vowed that you and your team would
    work with us to try to find better options.
        So we reintroduced our legislation this year. And in this
    year's version there are zero cuts to impact aid. In fact,
    impact aid is not mentioned at all in our legislation.
        I wondered if you maybe could testify for a moment to the
    virtues of giving our military families better education
    options and whether you might be able to support this renewed
    effort without cutting impact aid dollars.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, we share the same goals
    of helping our military families have more choice and more
    latitude as they do move around so frequently. And we know that
    there is a huge percentage that actually leave active duty
    because of this issue. So we have to find a way to give more
    families more choices.
        We have been working with the Department of Defense to see
    about a pilot program that they might be able to establish to
    test this out. But I would be happy to work with you, to
    continue to work with you, on finding a way to fund this in a
    way that is going to work to meet the needs of military
    families and work from a budget prospective.
        Mr. BANKS. We appreciate your commitment to doing that.
        I want to switch gears a little bit to another conversation
    that we have had before. Last year I sent your Department a
    letter requesting that you, ``Convene a senior level working
    group to understand how the People's Republic of China attempts
    to gather U.S. technology on U.S. universities and college
    campuses, and to develop recommendations for protecting the
    U.S. technology advantage.''
        I think we both agree that there is a serious threat on our
    college campuses today posed by our adversaries who steal our
    secrets, steal sensitive research on college campuses. Have we
    seen any progress over the past year since we exchanged letters
    on this subject?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I know that there have been a number
    of meetings between agencies that do touch on students in our
    country. And we know that there is more concerted or more--I
    guess, there is more attention to specifics around that on the
    part of a couple of other agencies that have more direct, you
    know--
        Mr. BANKS. I understand the time that we exchanged letters
    back in June and July of last year that you received, you or
    your Department received a briefing from the Intelligence
    Committee on these threats, is that correct?
        Secretary DEVOS. That is correct, yes.
        Mr. BANKS. Can you tell us quickly, can you estimate how
    many of your senior leaders in your Department have a security
    clearance to receive briefings of this nature?
        Secretary DEVOS. I think it is a handful.
        Mr. BANKS. Very few.
        Secretary DEVOS. Very few, yes.
        Mr. BANKS. Could we do more to grant more security
    clearances to your senior team to dive more deeply into these
    issues?
        Secretary DEVOS. I will be happy to check into that and get
    back with you.
        Mr. BANKS. Last week, Indiana University in my State ended
    their relationship with the Confucius Institute, MIT dropped
    grants from Wawa technologies, again on the same subject. I
    assume that you see that as progress?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I know that has been--that the
    Confucius Institutes, in particular, have been an issue raised
    as an area of concern, yes.
        Mr. BANKS. So due to the briefings that you have received,
    the information that you have seen on the subject, you agree
    that the Confucius Institutes, the Wawa grants to college
    campuses that also do sensitive research poses a threat?
        Secretary DEVOS. I think that issue has been raised both in
    our agency as well as other agencies, and there has been much
    more increased attention paid to these issues and schools that
    are taking this threat more seriously.
        Mr. BANKS. Has the Department of Education informed or
    educated college campuses about those threats?
        Secretary DEVOS. We have raised the question. The
    Department of Education's purview really is--extends to college
    campuses reporting their relationship in terms of gifts and
    contributions. And we have done much more, I would say
    assertive about insisting that they be accurate in doing so.
        Mr. BANKS. Last week, Acting Secretary Shanahan testified
    before the House Armed Services Committee. I asked him if he
    had ever engaged you on this subject. He said no. It is my
    belief that an intra agency task force between Department of
    Education and the Army Services Committee and others would be
    valuable, if not voluntary on your part, something that
    Congress should require to happen in some form.
        So with that, I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from
    Pennsylvania, Ms. Wild.
        Ms. WILD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
    Secretary. I have good news. I think we can agree on a point
    that was made in your opening Statement, and I think I am
    quoting it properly that ``Great education should not be
    dependent on family income.'' Is that a correct quote? And I
    assume that also includes, it should not be dependent on ZIP
    Code, fair to say.
        And can we agree that should be one of the primary goals of
    the Department of Education, that a good education is not
    dependent on those factors?
        Secretary DEVOS. Yes, that is certainly one of my goals.
        Ms. WILD. I have grave concerns that the program that you
    talked about, the Education Freedom Scholarship, does not bring
    us closer to that goal. And since it has been several hours
    since you discussed that proposal, I will remind everyone that
    this would be a Federal tax credit, dollar-for-dollar tax
    credit, to encourage voluntary contributions of up to $5
    billion each year for scholarships to elementary and secondary
    students. And that is called the Education Freedom Scholarship.
        But I have to concur with what my colleague Representative
    Fudge said, that just creates another hole in our Federal
    budget. Your written testimony that the proposal does not
    divert a single penny away from public school teachers or
    public school students is just, with all due respect,
    inaccurate. Because of course it does. Because it takes away
    tax dollars that can be devoted to education.
        So the other thing about the Education Freedom Scholarship
    that I have to note is that it is completely dependent on
    voluntary contributions. And I do not understand how that will
    lift up poorer States or students in low-income districts.
        In response to one of my colleagues from Pennsylvania who
    made a statement earlier, you responded by saying, and I am
    from Pennsylvania also, Madam Secretary, ``Pennsylvania has had
    great success in meeting students' needs.'' Well, I have to
    differ with you on that.
        The students in my district are not all on a level playing
    field. Indeed, we have a few districts that are terrific, great
    school districts. But we also have distressed school districts,
    and those school districts are not likely to benefit in any way
    from Education Freedom Scholarships because the people who live
    in those districts, or even in the Commonwealth of
    Pennsylvania, are very unlikely to contribute money because
    they simply don't have the wherewithal.
        I want to switch gears for a moment. I want to talk about
    the Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA. And it is my
    understanding that it was to strike an important balance in
    updating K through 12 law by putting States and districts in
    charge of how to best support struggling schools. But with the
    expectation that meaningful action would be taken to close
    persistent achievement gaps.
        And I am sure you would agree with me, wouldn't you, Madam
    Secretary, that you are charged with implementing ESSA through
    oversight, monitoring, and enforcement of the law's
    requirements? You would agree with me on that?
        Secretary DEVOS. Yes.
        Ms. WILD. Okay. I know that the Department recently
    released 2018 performance reports for six States. And all six
    from that report were flagged to take immediate action to
    address significant compliance and quality concerns related to
    ESSA implementation. And I personally was very troubled by the
    number and the breadth of the issues that were revealed in
    those performance reports, particularly the findings that the
    States are not implementing their approved ESSA plans with
    fidelity. And that without strong Federal oversight of the
    accountability measures in ESSA, there is little incentive for
    States to improve educational outcomes, at least under that
    law.
        So I am concerned that your reorganization of the
    Department may have diminished further the Department's
    capacity to conduct adequate monitoring for non-compliance. And
    I ask if you could comment on that.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congresswoman, let me just say that
    we are committed to ensuring that States implement their ESSA
    plans per the law, and that they are continuing to raise the
    bar for themselves and for students. And I have confidence that
    State leaders and State leadership want to see the best for
    their students. And we are wanting to be partners with them in
    ensuring that they are following through on their plans as
    designated.
        And then let me just comment one moment on--
        Ms. WILD. Well, I am going to be running out of time and I
    want to--
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. scholarship, in fact, that
    was absolutely--
        Ms. WILD. I want to get back to my question, please.
        So regarding ESSA, is it your testimony that there has been
    no reduction in capacity for Department staff that is charged
    with oversight and monitoring of the States?
        Secretary DEVOS. No, the elementary and secondary education
    staff is very focused on ensuring that ESSA monitoring and
    compliance--
        Ms. WILD. I don't think that answers my question. Because
    my question wasn't whether they are focused. My question was
    whether their capacity, because of reduction of Department
    staff, has been affected?
        Secretary DEVOS. No. The capacity is not impacted now.
        Ms. WILD. Do you have the same number of Department staff
    who are still charged with compliance?
        Secretary DEVOS. We have had some attrition Department-
    wide.
        Ms. WILD. Do you replace those people who leave?
        Secretary DEVOS. The ones that need to be replaced, the
    positions that need to be replaced, are being replaced or have
    been replaced.
        Ms. WILD. Let me move on. Each State was given 30 days to
    provide fresh evidence to the Department to resolve those
    issues. And three States were required to submit amendments to
    their approved ESSA plans. Has that happened? Have you received
    that evidence?
        Secretary DEVOS. I don't have the specific data on that. I
    would be happy to get back with you if you would like to
    submit--
        Ms. WILD. Are there deadlines for the States to submit the
    evidence?
        Secretary DEVOS. I am sure there are. And again, if you
    have specific questions in that area I would be happy with--
        Ms. WILD. We will followup with those. Thank you. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
    Fulcher.
        Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary. I
    represent the State of Idaho, and the culture there is a little
    bit different than other parts of the country. It has a
    tendency to be more independent, self-sufficient, so you
    probably won't hear us make as much noise in seeking Federal
    help a lot of the time.
        But we do have some unique situations there. We have got
    about two-thirds of our land mass which is federally owned,
    which takes those resources out, takes property tax off the
    table, but yet we still have the same constitutional
    responsibility for providing schools.
        And so I wanted to just ask you to speak to perhaps some of
    the provisions and/or flexibility for using the funds that we
    do receive, to address some of the unique characteristics of
    our State. Broadband in rural parts of the State, for example,
    or enhanced transportation to try to make that more accessible
    for our student base, that type of thing.
        Can you speak to that just with what is in the budget or
    possible flexibility in those areas?
        Secretary DEVOS. Sure. The Every Student Succeeds Act has a
    provision that actually no local districts have actually
    applied for yet, that would allow them to take up to 5 percent
    of their Title I funding and use it around a student-centered
    pilot. And that is something that could interject a lot more
    creativity into how students' needs were met. I would love to
    see a local district actually take advantage of this
    flexibility that was built into the law.
        And then I would say a companion to that is the Education
    Freedom Scholarships proposal that, if Idaho were to become a
    part of that, would give a lot of flexibility around providing
    transportation for students to get perhaps from a small rural
    school to a career and technical education center, or to
    enhance a career and technical education center experience and
    opportunity for students from a large region, really would give
    a great latitude to Idaho to be able to craft a program or
    programs that would be unique to the needs of Idaho.
        Mr. FULCHER. Thank you for that. And just to followup, if I
    may. Along with those maybe a little bit unique needs, in
    particular in the rural areas, there is a significant
    percentage of faith-based education facilities and also
    homeschool. Same question, do these provisions apply in those
    situations?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, an Education Freedom Scholarship
    proposal enacted and opted into by Idaho would allow Idaho to
    address those particular communities and allow for students to
    choose those or to choose to be supported by those if that is
    what Idaho decided to use the funds for.
        Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I yield the
    balance of my time to Representative Foxx.
        Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, I would
    like to pursue the issue of ESSA a little bit.
        You have assured us that the Department is carrying out its
    responsivities appropriately, State plans have been approved,
    States are identifying their first batch of low performance
    schools for improvement, and issuing a national report card on
    the student and school performance.
        Could you update the committee on the support you are
    offering States and school districts as implementation of the
    law continues, and expand on anything you were not allowed to
    say by my colleagues about this?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, thanks, Congresswoman. We have begun
    to receive waiver requests. And in addition to the regular
    monitoring and regular updating on ESSA plans and
    implementation, we are considering these waiver requests. We
    have received 72 thus far, 50 of them have been approved. Most
    of them related to the 1 percent alternative assessment cap
    based on regulations that were finalized under the previous
    administration. And so we are continuing to work with States as
    they have amendments to and/or waiver requests for their plans.
        And then with regard to the previous exchange here, I just
    want to again reiterate the fact that contributions to
    Education Freedom Scholarships are from individuals' funds,
    they are not taxpayer funds. They are voluntary contributions
    to be made by individuals or corporations.
        And I do not agree with the Congresswoman from
    Pennsylvania's notion that there would be no participants in
    Pennsylvania that would want to contribute. I know very much to
    the contrary because they have a couple of tax credit programs
    in the State today that many from within Pennsylvania
    contribute to. And anyone can contribute to any State in the
    country, any 501(c)(3) across the country. So those are just
    fallacies.
        Mrs. FOXX. Thank you.
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Secretary DeVos, for being here today.
        Madam Secretary, on March 13th, myself and 73 of my House
    colleagues sent you a letter regarding your actions preceding
    the closure of 24 colleges in the Argosy chain. This issue is
    very personal to me as one of those now-closed campuses is in
    my district, leaving constituents of Georgia's Sixth District
    wanting answers.
        Federal court appointed a receiver to wind down operations
    at Argosy. After reviewing the financial records of the
    education management corporation sale to Dream Center, the
    court-appointed receiver Stated in Federal court filings that
    within 60 days of the sale, executives at Dream Center knew
    that the institutions were, and I quote, ``Failing without the
    hope of redemption.''
        Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter these court
    filings into the record.
        Chairman SCOTT. Without objection.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you. Secretary DeVos, my question for you
    is when did the Department obtain this information?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congresswoman, again, let me just
    say that any school closure is unfortunate, and our focus has
    always been on helping students in those situations. We have
    been working with those--
        Ms. McBath. Secretary DeVos, you are not answering my
    question. Please answer the question. When did the Department
    obtain this information?
        Secretary DEVOS. About the financial distress of the
    school?
        Ms. McBath. The question that I asked is, what I am asking
    is, when did the Department obtain the information about the
    closure of these schools?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, we obtained the information when the
    schools communicated their financial distress. And we engaged
    immediately to ensure that students were helped in finding
    alternative programs to transfer to. Our focus, again, was on
    ensuring that students had opportunities other than the schools
    that they were going to--
        Ms. McBath. Secretary DeVos, we know that you did not
    sufficiently look into the financials of this institution at
    the time of transfer. Have you investigated the financials of
    this institution more recently? And also, do you think that you
    are better equipped to determine the State of the financial
    situation of a school than a court-appointed official
    responsible for cleaning up your mess?
        Secretary DEVOS. The Dream Center transaction was not
    approved by the Department. It was still being studied and
    examined and so there was no finality to a transfer. And the
    transaction was not formally approved by the Department. So
    again, school closure are very unfortunate.
        Ms. McBath. Secretary DeVos, the core function of the
    Department in college oversight is ensuring the financial
    responsibility and administrative capacity of these
    institutions. Further, it was over a billion taxpayer dollars
    flowing to those schools annually as of the conversion.
        You are sending these schools billions of dollars. If the
    buck doesn't stop with you, where does it stop?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congresswoman, we are very attentive to
    the needs of every student and every school that is serving
    them. And the fact is that we have continued to work with
    schools--
        Ms. McBath. Secretary DeVos, you are not answering my
    question.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. and let me just say that the
    previous administration went to war on these schools--
        Ms. McBath. Secretary DeVos, you are not answering my
    question. My students in my district and people on this
    committee deserve to have reasonable answers to reasonable
    questions. So I am going to go on and ask my second question.
        Secretary DEVOS. We have been working with the students in
    your schools.
        Ms. McBath. My second question to you is, if students had
    known that these schools are failing without hope for
    redemption, do you think they would have enrolled?
        Secretary DEVOS. Students have chosen the schools based on
    the programs offered. And again, it is unfortunate when schools
    close. We have been working with students from every school to
    help them find an alternative to complete their programs. If
    they are not able to do so or they choose not to do so, you
    know that they will go into the closed school loan forgiveness
    and that is the process. We are intent on helping students and
    helping schools in a situation where they are having to be
    enforced--
        Ms. McBath. Secretary DeVos, excuse me. You are going to
    have to deal with the fact that the individual appointed by a
    Federal judge made that decision. Correct?
        Secretary DEVOS. Made the decision. I am sorry, the
    decision of what?
        Ms. McBath. Made the decision for closing the schools with
    no hope for redemption.
        Secretary DEVOS. I am sorry, I am not sure I am following
    your question.
        Ms. McBath. Okay.
        Secretary DEVOS. The receiver?
        Ms. McBath. Yes, the receiver.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, the receiver stepped into the
    situation and we have been working with the schools and the
    receiver appropriately to continue to try to help students find
    an alternative program to transfer to.
        Ms. McBath. Okay. Madam Secretary, I just have to say that
    these are insufficient answers to reasonable questions. The
    1,500 students in my district, they need answers. And it is
    your role to discharge these loans, it is your role to protect
    those students. These students are counting on you. The
    Department's failures under your leadership led to this crisis,
    and I urge you to assume responsibility and take the actions
    necessary to make these students whole.
        I yield back my time.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from Illinois,
    Ms. Underwood.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. Secretary DeVos, hi. I want to focus on
    students with significant cognitive disabilities. Like all
    students with disabilities, they have the right to the same
    opportunities as their peers without disabilities. Unlike their
    peers though, students with significant cognitive disabilities
    may need what's called an alternative assessment so they can
    access an education that allows them to fulfill their
    incredible potential.
        Research shows, though, that some kids' educational
    opportunities were being limited by the overuse of alternative
    assessments for students who didn't actually need them. So ESSA
    made an important fix by capping the number of students being
    tested with the alternative assessment.
        Now knowing that States would need time to adjust to this
    new cap, Congress allowed for a waiver for this provision, and
    that was in 2015. I am deeply concerned that now, in 2019,
    under your leadership, the Department appears to be rubber
    stamping States' applications for these waivers, and failing to
    be transparent.
        In the 2017 to 2018 school year, 23 States received waivers
    for at least two subject areas. Now, under waiver application
    States must include a plan and a timeline for improvement so
    they can meet the cap requirement in the future.
        Secretary DeVos, I only have 5 minutes, or 4 minutes now,
    so I am just looking for a number, if you would. How many of
    those waiver applications have you made public?
        Secretary DEVOS. Again, we have received 70 waivers, we
    have granted 52 of them.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. Right. How many have you made public?
        Secretary DEVOS. Based on the regulations from the Obama
    Administration.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. So how many have you made public, ma'am?
        Secretary DEVOS. When the waiver requests are decided upon,
    they go up onto the website. They are all available when they
    have been decided.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. So the actual waiver? The actual waiver.
        Secretary DEVOS. We don't put the waiver request on the
    website prior to deciding whether it is going to be approved or
    denied.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. Okay. So the actual waiver has not been made
    public. However, this transparency is critical, that is why the
    information is required. If parents can't be sure that their
    kids are getting the right assessments, they can't be sure that
    their kids are getting a good education that allows them to
    fulfill their full amazing potential.
        Will you commit to making these waiver applications public,
    the actual application?
        Secretary DEVOS. No. We are not going to use the website as
    a filing cabinet. We are going to put the waiver requests, once
    they have been decided whether they are approved or denied, as
    we have, we will continue to do so.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. Right. I understand your willingness to
    release the outcome, we are looking for the application.
        Secretary DEVOS. No, we are not going to do that.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. Okay. Your staff has already committed to
    this in conversations with our committee and our committee
    staff. Why won't you commit to it here today?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I will be happy to circle back with
    the staff, but we have not as a matter of course put the
    applications on the website, but only the decisions once they
    have been made.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. Well, I am just asking for simple
    transparency on something that is really at its core a civil
    rights issue that your agency is bound by law to implement. So
    I am really disappointed to hear that outcome, ma'am, and we
    will be following up on it.
        My next question is about the waivers that the States must
    demonstrate substantial progress toward achieving each
    component of the prior year's plan and timeline for
    improvement. As of February 27th, when you most recently
    provided this information to the committee in writing, you had
    approved six States for waiver extensions for this school year,
    2018 to 2019. Did those States demonstrate substantial progress
    toward improvement, as required by law?
        Secretary DEVOS. Again, we have in total received 70 waiver
    requests, 17 of them have been denied, 52 of them have been
    approved. Most of them have been around the 1 percent
    alternative assessment cap.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. Well what we are looking for, ma'am, is
    transparency, and that they be made public. There is no way for
    us to know if you are not willing to release that information
    publicly. The outcome on its own is not enough. How would
    stakeholders know progress has been made given that these plans
    aren't public?
        Secretary DEVOS. But they are made public. All of the
    waiver requests are made public once the decision has been
    made. It is all public.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. I am looking for the exact number of the
    waivers that you have approved this year for States that
    received waivers last year.
        Secretary DEVOS. If you would like to submit a question for
    the record, I will be happy to followup with the specific
    information that you have required. But I have tried to be
    accurate in the number of waiver requests we have received,
    what we have decided upon, and the fact that all of those
    requests have been put up on the website once the decision has
    been made.
        Ms. UNDERWOOD. Okay. We will be following up. But it seems
    to me if you are going to come and ask this committee for a
    certain number of dollars for the upcoming year, that this is a
    very reasonable question to be asked in this setting, ma'am.
    And so the punting to the question for the record, I think,
    speaks to the transparency issue that we have been getting at
    this morning. Withholding this information does prevent
    families and educators and IEP teams, these individual
    education plan teams, from being able to make informed
    decisions about the education of students with disabilities.
        It violates students' civil rights, it violates morality,
    and it violates both the spirit and the letter of Federal law.
    And students with disabilities deserve better.
        Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and
    Secretary DeVos, I will be following up. Thank you.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from Washington,
    Ms. Schrier.
        Ms. SCHRIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Madam Secretary,
    thank you for joining us today.
        Your recent appearances have generated considerable media
    attention regarding the administration's proposal, now for the
    third year in a row, to eliminate all Federal funding for the
    Special Olympics. And I just want to say as a pediatrician that
    I can tell you firsthand that my patients with Down syndrome
    and with disabilities consider the Special Olympics to be the
    absolute highlight of their lives. And it takes some special
    kind of heartlessness to cut funding for the Special Olympics.
        And that is why despite wanting to cut that, Congress has
    consistently funded the Special Olympics for these past 3
    years. And we know that funding is safe, but I think the whole
    discussion really pulled the curtain back on some other cuts
    that really put families and children with special needs at
    risk. And these are really significant ones.
        So the first is that you have proposed flat funding of Part
    C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
    Which in light of increasing need, it really is more like a cut
    in spending for infants and toddlers with disabilities. And
    this is a time, you know, again, as a pediatrician, I talked
    with one of my colleagues this morning, with a remarkable and
    devastating increase in the number of babies who are born
    addicted or exposed to drugs in utero, and those are exactly
    the children who will rely on these special programs. And as a
    pediatrician I send kids all the time to the zero to three
    programs. And they do require that.
        You have also proposed flat funding of the IDEA Act, Part
    B. And if Part B were really fully funded, like it is supposed
    to be, the Federal Government would cover 40 percent of the
    cost to educate a K to 12 student with disabilities. Now, right
    now, embarrassingly, we are only funding 14, 14.7 percent, and
    your flat funding would even cut that further to 13 percent for
    Fiscal Year 2020. And so I believe we are headed in the wrong
    direction for the youngest children and for the K to 12
    children. And if you put this together with the attacks on
    Medicaid and on healthcare, because this matters for kids with
    disabilities.
        You say that individuals with disabilities are a priority
    for this administration, but your actions suggest otherwise.
    And I was just wondering, given all this, how can you justify
    that claim that individuals with disabilities are priority for
    this administration?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congresswoman, thanks for that question.
    We both share love of and desire to help all students,
    including and especially those with disabilities.
        The reality is that we had to present a budget that fell
    within Congress' caps. We had to cut the budget by 10 percent
    to meet that. That required making decisions that were
    difficult. And we propose the budget, but Congress disposes,
    and so you will decide what you are going to fund and what you
    are not going to fund.
        We wanted to prioritize those programs that were going to
    most directly help those with the most needs and the most
    vulnerable: level funding for Title 1, level funding for IDEA,
    and level funding for English language learners.
        Ms. SCHRIER. As I mentioned--
        Secretary DEVOS. Up to $13.2 billion for IDEA. And I have
    been before this committee before talking about the fact that
    Congress, when IDEA was passed, committed to funding IDEA at a
    much higher percentage than it is today.
        Ms. SCHRIER. I hear you. So let me just say, the flat
    funding is really falling short for the families that I take
    care of. And really--
        Secretary DEVOS. Again, we had to fall within the
    congressional parameters on the budget. So if, you know, this
    is something for Congress to address and potentially change.
        Ms. SCHRIER. I am going to reclaim some time here because
    there is another question I really wanted to get to, which is
    that I am in a district that is very geographically diverse. I
    have a lot of rural territory, and this concerns rural schools.
    And this committee recently marked up H.R. 865, the Rebuild
    America Schools Act. And this supports public school repairs
    and modernization, things like protecting from lead in the
    water and black mold and temperature extremes. And I am sure
    that you know that your own Department has estimated it would
    cost nearly 150 billion per year to bring schools into just
    good condition. And these rural schools, you know, almost
    always have the greatest need and yet the fewest resources. And
    so even this morning you said, let's see here, ``Contrast
    between $100 billion for buildings versus $5 billion for
    students, and this administration urges the body to invest in
    students.''
        I would just remind you that investing in schools or
    students' learning is investing in students. And that wanting
    to put this money into--this is really another voucher scheme
    where you are wanting to take public dollars from public
    schools, especially in rural areas, and give them to private
    schools, which don't even exist in those areas.
        And so I am out of time, but I just wanted to say this is
    really a disservice to the rural districts, the rural schools
    in my district.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, the Education Freedom Scholarships
    would actually have the potential to help many rural students
    through course choice, through transportation, through
    technical education centers. It would provide a lot of
    opportunity to create--
        Ms. SCHRIER. That just don't exist in a lot of these areas.
        Secretary DEVOS. That is what this would do would be to
    help create some new opportunities for them.
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Shalala.
        Ms. SHALALA. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I admire your
    persistence of--I have sat there for hours in my previous life.
    Thank you for coming.
        I would like to begin my questions on a topic of great
    importance to me and to my community. And that is the equity in
    IDEA rule known as significant disproportionality.
        The IDEA, as you know, requires States to identify school
    districts that have significant disproportionality for students
    of color with disabilities in their identification, placement,
    and discipline. The States have been very uneven in
    administrating this. So in 2016, the previous administration
    issued the final regulation to set a long overdue compliance
    standard for this important statutory requirement.
        The regulation actually came out of a large and growing
    body of research, which I have read pretty carefully, that
    demonstrated that students of color were being over-identified
    for special educational services, placed in more restrictive
    learning environments, and punished with harsher disciplines
    than their white peers.
        Last year you chose to delay this rule despite many of the
    States that were working toward implementation, and you chose
    to delay it for 2 years. Shortly after that delay you were sued
    by the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, and on March
    7th, a month ago, the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Columbia ruled in favor of the parents and students and ordered
    you to begin implementing this regulation immediately.
        Are you implementing the equity in IDEA rule, the
    significant disproportionality rule, as required by the Federal
    court order?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congresswoman, first let me say thank you
    for acknowledging the difficulty of being in this seat. But I
    am concerned that every student receive the services they need.
    We are currently reviewing the district court order and
    deciding on next steps. We are moving toward implementation.
    But I am also concerned about either over-identification or
    under-identification of students in need of special education
    services.
        So I think we share the same goal of ensuring that
    students' needs are met. And we are, again, reviewing the court
    order and moving in the direction of implementation.
        Ms. SHALALA. Okay. Moving in the direction of
    implementation, you have had a month to review the order. The
    order isn't very complicated, it is only 43 pages. I read it in
    20 minutes. I could have written the guidance legislation, the
    guidance letter for you in a very short period of time.
        Is there any reason why you can't do this, send out the
    guidance, and put the implementation plan in place in the next
    month?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, let me just say that we feel
    students need to be treated as individuals and not as
    statistics or groups. And so we are going to continue to look
    at the way to implement this, look at the court's decision and
    ensure that we are moving in the direction of supporting
    students.
        Ms. SHALALA. I understand your point about an individual,
    but this is standard methodology to treat every student fairly,
    that is exactly what the rule was set up to do. It is a pretty
    strong rule. And it is to make sure that, as you said, that
    great education should not depend on where a student happens to
    live. To treat students of color, students with disabilities
    fairly. And that is what the rule was set out to do.
        It went through a rulemaking process, every stakeholder had
    a chance to talk about it. So why can't you implement it, start
    the implementation process immediately? Why can't you send out
    a guidance letter right now?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, as you know, working in a large
    agency, some of these things take more than a couple of days.
    And so, again, we are continuing to move in the direction of
    implementation and we are concerned with every single student
    and that they not be over identified or under identified.
        Ms. SHALALA. Well, you are suggesting to me that you are
    not willing to follow the law. The court said immediately. And
    so tell me your timeframe for implementing this court order.
        Secretary DEVOS. We are in process of implementing.
        Ms. SHALALA. Okay. What is your timeframe?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I will be happy to get you a more
    specific timeframe if you would like to--
        Ms. SHALALA. Okay. Can you get it to me in the next week?
        Secretary DEVOS. I think we can.
        Ms. SHALALA. Okay. But it has got to be reasonable. Look,
    children are suffering. As you well know, equity delayed is
    equity denied. And if this continues, children are suffering
    every day. It is very important that we have a very specific
    timeline for the implementation of this rule.
        I yield back my time.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Levin.
        Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary DeVos, thanks
    for being here today.
        I am concerned about your failure to decide and grant
    borrower defense applications, what Mr. Takano was talking
    about earlier, which is supposed to allow students who believe
    they were defrauded by their college, to apply for loan
    forgiveness.
        As of December 31, 2018, there were 158,110 borrower
    defense claims pending. And the total number of approved claims
    had not changed in more than a year: zero approved or denied. I
    am very concerned by this administration's failure, that the
    administration is failing to protect our students and denying
    justice to those who have been defrauded.
        Secretary DeVos, I trust you are aware of the court order
    in Manriquez v. DeVos on this matter.
        Secretary DEVOS. I am.
        Mr. LEVIN. Okay. I will quote from the Federal Student Aid
    webpage to describe the Manriquez v. DeVos decision. ``It
    prevents the Department from collecting on Federal student
    loans from covered Corinthian borrowers.'' Okay?
        So are you aware that FSA is violating that court order?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, we have continued to--
        Mr. LEVIN. Are you aware that they are violating the court
    order?
        Secretary DEVOS. Let me just say--
        Mr. LEVIN. It is a yes or no question.
        Secretary DEVOS. It is not a yes or no answer. We have
    completed 16,519 eligible borrowers and--
        Mr. LEVIN. I know you are reading from the same thing that
    you said. I am going to reclaim my time.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. student loans and automatic
    closed school discharge--
        Mr. LEVIN. I am going to reclaim my time, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary DEVOS. Most of those were--
        Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman--
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. Corinthian college students.
        Mr. LEVIN. I would seek unanimous consent to enter into the
    record evidence from Nadine Stewart.
        Chairman SCOTT. Without objection.
        Mr. LEVIN. Nadine was a student at Everest, a Corinthian
    subsidiary, and she is protected by that court order from
    having her loans put in repayment. When she contacted the
    Borrower Defense Hotline she was incorrectly informed that she
    had to actively request forbearance. They eventually put her in
    forbearance, but only after incorrectly insisting that had she
    not called in, her loans would not have been able to be put in
    forbearance.
        Madam Secretary, do you know how many other borrowers FSA
    has illegally ordered collections on, in addition to her?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, we continue to work very
    diligently on the whole borrower defense claims issue. We have,
    as I said--
        Mr. LEVIN. So do you know? I don't want you to read your
    notes again. Madam Secretary--
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. almost 48,000 that have been
    approved, and for whom relief has been provided.
        Mr. LEVIN. I have heard you read your Statement before to
    Mr. Takano.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, do you want to have the numbers or
    do you not?
        Mr. LEVIN. Do you have a number of--
        Secretary DEVOS. I have numbers.
        Mr. LEVIN. A number of--I asked you a question. I am not
    asking to say any number that you feel like saying. Do you know
    how many other students like Nadine Stewart were incorrectly
    collected on by the FSA? Yes or no. Do you have a number? You
    said you had a number.
        Secretary DEVOS. Incorrectly collected on?
        Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
        Secretary DEVOS. That is not a category that I would--
        Mr. LEVIN. I wish you would keep track of that category,
    Madam Secretary, that would be super for the students of this
    country.
        Reclaiming my time. On March 15, 2019, the Department
    issued guidance on the 2016 borrower defense regulation. My
    concern is that the guidance does not State that the Department
    will enforce the rule against institutions that seek to enforce
    pre-dispute arbitration agreements against students with
    borrower defense claims. We are talking about pre-dispute
    arbitration agreements.
        Under the terms of the 2016 regulation, any institution
    that relies on a pre-dispute arbitration agreement or class
    action waiver has violated the terms of its program
    participation agreement with the Department and should
    immediately lose eligibility. No pre-dispute agreements are
    allowed.
        At least one school, represented by a law firm that is a
    repeat player with the Department of Education, has forced
    students into arbitration since the 2016 rule has gone into
    effect.
        Do you commit to revoking the eligibility of schools that
    rely on pre-dispute arbitration agreements, which are not
    allowed under the regulations?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, we are continuing to address
    the applications made, both by students that have been part of
    closed schools and by those who are submitting claims--
        Mr. LEVIN. So let me ask you, did Corinthian College use
    arbitration against students?
        Secretary DEVOS. Corinthian College students are--
        Mr. LEVIN. They did.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. due closed school relief--
        Mr. LEVIN. Did ITT use arbitration against students?
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. and we have continued to
    address their applications.
        Mr. LEVIN. Let me just ask you, did EDMC and Dream Center,
    with brands like Art Institutes and Argosy, use arbitration
    agreements against students? Did Vatterott, did ECA, Virginia
    College and Brightwood? They all did. And I am gravely
    concerned, Madam Secretary, that these are just some examples
    of how the Department under your leadership has been less
    concerned with protecting students than with giving cover to
    profit-driven actors.
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, we are concerned with--
        Mr. LEVIN. My time has expired.
        Secretary DEVOS. We are concerned with not--
        Mr. LEVIN. You are not showing it by your actions, Madam
    Secretary.
        Secretary DEVOS. Not only to protect the students--
        Mr. LEVIN. What matters is your actions.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. but also protecting campuses.
        Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Trone.
        Mr. TRONE. Next month is the 65th anniversary of Brown v.
    Board of Education, the landmark ruling that established school
    segregation is unconstitutional. The fact of the matter is this
    is an issue we have stopped discussing, but it is a problem
    that we have not stopped having.
        In 2016, GAO found that public schools have actually become
    more segregated by race and class than any time since 1960.
    Unfortunately, we are seeing this in my district. A court
    recently found that Montgomery County high schools are
    stratified by income, race, ethnicity, and that an achievement
    gap between high and low poverty schools has widened.
        Madam Secretary, do you believe that racial segregation in
    public schools poses a threat to the educational opportunity
    for children of color? Just looking for a yes or a no.
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, I am concerned about every
    student no matter where they are and where they go to school.
        Mr. TRONE. I know you are concerned about every student,
    but racial segregation poses a threat for children. That is an
    easy one. Give me a yes on that one.
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, I am concerned with every
    single student.
        Mr. TRONE. Madam Secretary, we know that racially isolated
    schools tend to have fewer resources. Yet last summer the
    administration rescinded voluntary Federal guidance on student
    diversity, voluntary guidance, put in place by the Obama
    Administration. Part of that nonbinding guidance helped school
    districts understand how to develop and implement voluntary
    integration efforts.
        You are familiar with the K to 12 diversity guidance
    document, ma'am?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, we continue to be most
    concerned about all students and--
        Mr. TRONE. Are you familiar with that document?
        Secretary DEVOS. I am not familiar with that particular
    document.
        Mr. TRONE. Okay. Rescission of that guidance has caused
    confusion and fear about the intent of the Trump
    administration, so I would like to give you an opportunity to
    clarify. I want to be clear that no matter what your action is,
    Federal law and Supreme Court precedent still stands on the use
    of race in school assignment.
        With this understanding, are you familiar with the case of
    Parents Involved v. Seattle School District 1, specifically
    Justice Kennedy's concurrence?
        Secretary DEVOS. I am not familiar with that particular
    case.
        Mr. TRONE. Justice Kennedy wrote, ``A compelling interest
    exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school
    district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to
    pursue.'' He then went on to State to the Court's decision in
    Parents Involved ``should not prevent school districts from
    continuing the important work of bringing together students of
    different racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds.''
        Do you agree with Justice Kennedy's comments? Yes or no.
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, I agree that it is valuable
    for every student to be in a school setting that has great
    diversity. I think it is valuable for every student and it is--
        Mr. TRONE. Excellent. So you support the autonomy of K to
    12 school districts to use constitutionally permitted race-
    conscious methods to achieve racial and economic integration?
    We need to be unequivocally clear on this for our local
    leaders. A yes or a no.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, the Supreme Court has
    opined on this and given parameters around where race can be
    considered.
        Mr. TRONE. So you support the autonomy of colleges and
    universities to use constitutionally permitted race-conscious
    methods to achieve racial and economic integration? And your
    agency will agree not to intervene to stop these efforts?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, again, the goal should be to
    have diversity of every sort. And the Supreme Court has opined
    in this and has given very clear guidance and direction around
    this. And we will defer to and obey what the courts have
    decided.
        Mr. TRONE. I will take that is close to a yes.
        One last thing, Secretary. We want local leaders to have
    the ability to improve diversity efforts in their schools if
    they choose. Would you commit to working with Congress to
    strike Section 426 from GEPA so that local leaders have the
    flexibility to use racial and socioeconomic diversity efforts
    as a means for school improvement under ESSA?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, again, our goal is to ensure
    that every student has an equal opportunity to get a great
    education. Today there are too many kids going to schools to
    which they are assigned that have no choice to go anywhere
    else. Students, all students, need to have those kinds of
    opportunities, not just wealthy ones, not just ones who--
        Mr. TRONE. That is great. I don't hear a no, so I think we
    will work with you together on that. We are in complete
    agreement.
        In closing I would like to leave you with the words of
    Justice Kennedy's concurrence. ``It's an American tradition to
    continue confronting flaws and injustices in our systems, even
    if we have made progress already. It is a quality that is that
    important. This is especially true when we seek assurance that
    opportunity is not denied on account of race. Enduring hope is
    that race should not matter. The reality is it too often
    does.''
        Thank you, ma'am. I yield back my time.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. My colleague from Virginia, Mr.
    Cline.
        Mr. CLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for being here today.
        Secretary DeVos, as policymakers we hold the responsibility
    of consistently thinking about how what we do now impacts the
    future. And one of the best ways this plays out is through the
    cost of higher education. As you mentioned, the Federal student
    aid loan portfolio is the largest consumer loan portfolio in
    America at almost $1.5 trillion.
        I am particularly concerned about the 43 percent that you
    mentioned are at risk. Unlimited loaning, lending, and granting
    of money does not provide a true benefit if it is not coupled
    with accountability and responsibility. And that is by all
    parties, including students and institutions, lenders, and, in
    fact, the Federal Government as well.
        Market competition needs to open up more options that are
    straightforward for students, and innovation should be
    encouraged so that higher ed institutions can create options as
    well, that actually work for students, and allow them to
    graduate without insurmountable debt.
        I worked very hard in the State legislature in Virginia to
    create an online bachelor's degree that lowers the cost for
    Virginia students recognizing that these goals is just the
    first part of the challenge that we face.
        Secretary DeVos, I would asked you, what are we currently
    doing to ensure that students, institutions, and the private
    sector, in addition to the Federal Government, are all partners
    in making higher education accessible and more affordable?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, we share the goal of
    accessibility and affordability for students, and also the
    concern about the continued rising costs. I would just cite an
    example, a very, I think worthy example that others should look
    at and emulate at Purdue University where for the eighth
    straight year tuition has been held steady, where income share
    agreements have been introduced as an option for students to
    participate in.
        I think those are creative approaches that other
    institutions should look at closely, and there should be some
    robust discussion in this chamber and elsewhere about how to
    change up the equation so that students--first of all students
    are not running up student loan debt to a point where they
    cannot afford to pay it off again. And where institutions have
    some kind of a vested interest in seeing their students succeed
    and complete.
        Mr. CLINE. For someone who is still repaying his law loans
    I agree with you completely, but I have made sure that when I
    was looking at how much it was going to cost, whether I could
    afford to pay it back with the degree that I was pursuing.
    Because a lot of times, if you are pursuing a degree that is
    going to give you opportunities for jobs in a certain sector of
    the economy, that is not going to enable you to pay those loans
    back in a reasonable amount of time, and you need to reconsider
    whether that is an appropriate school for you, course of study
    for you, and plan for you.
        So, everybody needs to take a little bit more
    accountability and responsibility, including the institutions
    which I believe should--there should be a tie back to how much
    the institution is charging as it relates to how much the
    students can borrow. So, I want to make that point as well, and
    I appreciate your comments.
        Mr. Chairman, at this point I would yield my remaining time
    to the ranking member, Dr. Foxx.
        Secretary DEVOS. Congressman, could I just make one comment
    to--
        Mr. WALBERG. I am glad to have it yielded to me as ranking
    member right now, and I would followup and ask the Secretary if
    there are some additional comments you would like to add.
        Secretary DEVOS. Thank you, Congressman. I was just going
    to add that we will be adding this fall additional information
    to the college scorecard that will get at exactly what you have
    talked about. Providing students program level data by
    institution so that they can compare between institutions,
    programs specific to institutions, and see what the cost is,
    what their likely earning potential is.
        And at a program level, this will be much more meaningful
    than what is currently shared, which is the average cost--I
    mean, yes, the average earning and the average cost per
    institution. This will help students be better prepared and
    hopefully make better decisions.
        Mr. WALBERG. if I could continue. Thank you for yielding.
    Going back to the question coming from the representative from
    Pennsylvania, about the inability in certain parts of her
    district of schools, of individuals, having incapability of
    paying for this education.
        Could you address that a little more clearly? The fact that
    they are not paying for it, it is a tax credit that they will
    have the opportunity for?
        Secretary DEVOS. Right. Indeed, with the Tax Credit
    Scholarship Program, Pennsylvania would have the opportunity to
    participate and then formulate programs to either enhance
    choice programs they have there or create new ones or both, and
    the district that she was particularly referring to, would be
    able to participate. Presumably, there would be opportunities
    to expand the options for students in that district to meet the
    needs specific to that district.
        Mr. WALBERG. Thank you.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms.
    Lee?
        Ms. LEE. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Secretary DeVos,
    for being here this very long day. I wanted to talk to you
    about students who fall victim to predatory schools, and the
    mechanisms we have in place to help protect them, but also
    protect abuse of taxpayer dollars.
        In Nevada, where I am from, 30 institutions have folded in
    the last decade alone, leaving thousands of students without a
    degree, broken futures, and thousands of dollars of student
    debt.
        These institutions, sadly, prey on some of our most
    vulnerable students, students I have served who are low-income
    and students of color and often veterans. And there are
    students like a 22-year-old mother of two named Chelsea, who
    went to Brightwood to get a nursing degree. She received a Pell
    Grant, took out a Federal student loan, took out a personal
    loan, a private loan, not to mention the hours of childcare
    that she paid for. And as we know, Brightwood closed in
    December of 2018 leaving Chelsea 11 weeks away from becoming a
    nurse and $30,000 into debt.
        I just want to ask you, again, a quick yes/no, do you
    believe, assuming that Chelsea has no viable option to complete
    her degree, do you believe that students like her deserve a
    legal avenue to have their loans discharged in these cases?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congresswoman, yes, it sounds like
    if she doesn't find an alternative, she would fall into the
    closed school discharge category, and her loans will be
    relieved. Let me just say, though, it is really regrettable the
    number of institutions that have been closing, and I would say
    it is due in large part to the policies of the previous
    administration really going after these entities and these
    institutions. And we are seeing closures, not only, by those in
    the--
        Ms. LEE. Well, this was actually an institution, it was
    closed by ACICS, believe it or not. But students who have been
    defrauded, as you say, do have a legal right through the
    borrower defensive repayment rule.
        Right now you are under a court order to implement this
    regulation which not only helps get these students the timely
    discharge of their loans, but also requires the Department to
    collect information on these institutions that is a predictor
    of their financial distress. You are then required to use that
    information to determine, identify these risky schools, and
    then require them to get a letter of credit that protects
    taxpayers from their risky behavior.
        And my question to you, again, is a yes/no, are you
    currently collecting this information that allows you to
    determine if these schools are at risk of going under?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, we are implementing the 2016 rule
    per the judge's order, but at the same time, we are also
    working on amending that rule so that it is better reflective
    of the policies that we believe are more balanced between
    student and taxpayer concerns because we do not agree that the
    previous administration--
        Ms. LEE. No, it is a court--excuse me, it is a court order.
        Secretary DEVOS. Yes. And we are implementing--yes.
        Ms. LEE. So, you can't amend a court order. I mean, it is a
    court order. That it was very clearly, October 2018, very
    clearly said, you must immediately begin collecting this
    information, so just a yes/no. I assume you are.
        Secretary DEVOS. And yes, we have.
        Ms. LEE. Okay.
        Secretary DEVOS. I just wanted to say, we are continuing to
    work on revising the rule in general.
        Ms. LEE. Okay. Well, since you are collecting this
    information, which is great news, I would like to--that means
    you must have sent a letter of guidance to institutions
    requesting certain information. And my request of you is, have
    you sent this letter? And if so, can we receive a copy of it,
    plus a list of the institutions that you have requested this
    information from?
        Secretary DEVOS. If you would submit a specific question
    for the record around what specific information you want, we
    will be happy to give that.
        Ms. LEE. I am submitting it right now.
        Secretary DEVOS. Okay.
        Ms. LEE. The request for the record is, I would like you to
    give us the letter that you sent to institutions across the
    country requesting this information. I don't know what
    information you requested, if we could have that letter and the
    institutions you sent it to within the next 2 weeks, that would
    be fabulous.
        Secretary DEVOS. I will be happy to provide.
        Ms. LEE. Thank you. And that is all I really have. You
    know, I think that--I want to thank you for being here. I mean,
    clearly, you know that a lot is at stake, this borrower
    defense, you know, not only was here to protect students, but
    it also allows us to protect taxpayer dollars, and so based on
    your response today, I am glad you are implementing that and
    collecting that information. We look forward to it.
        And I don't have any time to yield. Thank you.
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr.
    Foxx.
        Mrs. FOXX. I'll wait on the time.
        Chairman SCOTT. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro.
        Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman. Secretary DeVos, thank you
    for your testimony. You know, over the last many years, we have
    had very heated debates and important debates about things like
    teacher pay, many of us believed they deserve a raise,
    credentialing in the 1980's and 1990's, and whether students
    are college ready or substantively prepared to go on to
    college, and a lot of that debate is centered around testing in
    States.
        But there are important things that happen inside the
    school but outside the classroom. And in many States like mine,
    Texas, the ratio of counselors to students is 300-to-1, 400-to-
    1, or even more.
        So, my question to you is, what is your Department doing to
    make sure that not only are we substantively preparing students
    to go to college, but actually building an infrastructure to
    help guide them there?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, the Federal Department
    has a limited role in that regard. States and communities have
    a much greater role, and we continue to see that in spite of
    the fact that the Federal Government has been involved with
    investing billions of dollars over the last 50 years, we have
    seen no real difference or improvement in outcomes for the
    students that we purported to help the most.
        So, we will continue to work with and encourage and support
    States in their roles of supporting students--
        Mr. CASTRO. Well, I guess I am asking you, what is the
    Department doing now? A very specific question. What are you
    doing now to help guide students to college? If the answer is
    nothing, then it is nothing.
        Secretary DEVOS. To help guide students to college?
        Mr. CASTRO. To college or their careers, sure.
        Secretary DEVOS. We are continuing to support the programs
    as authorized by Congress that--
        Mr. CASTRO. Which programs are you speaking about?
        Secretary DEVOS. That will help students, the preparation
    programs that you have committed Title I funding dollars for,
    IDEA dollars, English Language Learners, in addition to a host
    of other programs. We are--the budget for the Department is
    this year $64 billion proposed, and so there is a lot of
    investment in education, and yet we still have not seen the
    kinds of changes for students, or the kinds of outcomes that
    one would expect after 50 years of trying to engineer these
    things from the Federal level.
        Mr. CASTRO. But I guess it would--
        Secretary DEVOS. Our administration continues to aspire
    to--
        Mr. CASTRO. Let me reclaim my time for a second. But it
    sounds as though you have given up on the idea--
        Secretary DEVOS. Not at all.
        Mr. CASTRO [continuing]. that the Federal Government can be
    helpful. Is that the case?
        Secretary DEVOS. Not at all. That is why we propose a pivot
    to something different through the Education Freedom
    Scholarship proposal, to allow States and local communities to
    craft programs that are going to give students that need the
    most help, the access to choices that they need to make.
        Mr. CASTRO. I understand that. And that is a matter of
    money, right, that is making sure that financial aid is
    available to somebody. I am asking you a slightly different--
        Secretary DEVOS. No. It is a matter of providing different
    opportunities and choices.
        Mr. CASTRO. Right. But it is still about--it is making sure
    that financial resources are available to someone. I am asking
    you a different question, which is the infrastructure of having
    counselors or college advisors or people who are helping guide
    students. Many of these folks have parents that never went to
    college. These processes, like applying for financial aid and
    admissions, are not always intuitive processes. And so what is
    your Department doing to build that infrastructure or improve
    upon it? Or are you leaving it all to the States?
        Secretary DEVOS. We believe that States and communities
    have the biggest role to play. They are the ones closest to
    families, they are the ones closest to students. And we, in
    fact, believe that empowering students to find the right fit
    for them for their education is highly important. Those who are
    wealthy and powerful have those choices and opportunities
    today. We believe all students should have those opportunities.
        Mr. CASTRO. Well, thank you for your response. I would just
    hope that you all would really think about what your Department
    can do to be helpful to students, many of whom are first-time
    or could be first-time college students in their families and
    are struggling to figure out the whole process of applying for
    admissions and financial aid.
        Thank you, Secretary.
        Chairman SCOTT. And yield time to the chair?
        Mr. CASTRO. Of course.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. Madam Secretary, you heard the
    previous question about school infrastructure, that we are
    hundreds of billions of dollars in need, no heat, no air-
    conditioning. Is that a problem? And if so, what is your plan?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Chairman, as I said in my opening
    Statement we believe that after billions and billions of
    dollars invested at the Federal level trying to engineer
    improvement in student outcomes and achievement, that we need
    to pivot and try something different and empower students at
    the most local level, to make different choices and decisions.
        Chairman SCOTT. Do I understand you to say--did I
    understand you to say that you do not have a plan for
    infrastructure for crumbling schools?
        Secretary DEVOS. We know that there are schools today that
    have been empty for years. We know that there are schools that
    underutilized. It is not about buildings. It is about helping
    support students to find their path and their fit.
        Chairman SCOTT. And so in those areas where there are
    crumbling schools, do you see that as a problem? And if so--
        Secretary DEVOS. Those are State and local issues to really
    deal with. We know that the States and the communities really
    are investing in over 90 percent of the funding to education,
    and so that is really their issue to deal with.
        Chairman SCOTT. Okay. Thank you. I think we have gotten
    your response, that you have no plan for crumbling
    infrastructure.
        The gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx.
        Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I
    would like to ask you about the Public Service Loan Forgiveness
    programs. Is it true that Congress set the terms and conditions
    borrowers must meet to receive PSLF?
        Secretary DEVOS. Yes, that is the case.
        Mrs. FOXX. Is it true that the previous administration had
    8 years to issue clarifying guidance to students and
    contractors about PSLF?
        Secretary DEVOS. Correct.
        Mrs. FOXX. Furthermore, is it true that the previous
    administration had 8 years in which to spread the word about
    the requirements of PSLF?
        Secretary DEVOS. That is correct.
        Mrs. FOXX. During your tenure at the Department, Congress
    has made available hundreds of millions of dollars to
    temporarily expand PSLF to those borrowers in the wrong
    repayment plan. Can you confirm you did not set those terms and
    conditions, but that Congress determined those qualifications?
        Secretary DEVOS. That will be correct.
        Mrs. FOXX. Now that we have clarified who exactly is and
    was responsible for the PSLF Program, I would like to hear from
    you about the work your Department has done to make borrowers
    aware of the program and help them navigate the application
    process. Could you update us on this work?
        Secretary DEVOS. We are continuing to look at and deal with
    applications for public service loan forgiveness, as you have
    identified. Congress set up a difficult program, difficult to
    qualify for. And to date we have had 49,000, nearly 50,000
    applications, 32,000 of which do not meet the program
    requirements and almost 12,000 of them had missing information,
    so we are communicating with them, letting them know that
    information is missing.
        But as you have identified, Congress set up a program that
    is hard to qualify for, and we are continuing to address every
    application. And for those who do qualify we are proceeding
    with their loan forgiveness.
        And as you well know, our budget proposes actually phasing
    out public service loan forgiveness, because we don't think
    that one type of a job, one type of role should be incentivized
    over another.
        And Congresswoman, you have used the example yourself, of a
    nurse that goes to work in a not-for-profit hospital has the
    chance of qualifying, if they jump through the right hoops, for
    the public service loan forgiveness, while a nurse that goes to
    work in a hospital that happens to be organized as a for-profit
    doing the same kind of work, a public service, does not
    qualify.
        And so we continue to believe that we should be equally
    incentivizing all students to pursue the direction that is
    right for them, and not favoring one kind of a role or job over
    another.
        Mrs. FOXX. Well, I think our colleagues have pointed out
    lots of places that we would like to spend more money, and I
    think the PSLF Program which is projected to cost $24 billion
    over the next 10 years, I think we probably could have found
    better places to have used that money.
        Madam Secretary, let us talk a little bit about NEGREG, and
    let us see if we can get that straightened out a little bit.
    You have done a fantastic job today of trying to educate our
    members on the facts of things. And I appreciate what you have
    done on that.
        But let us talk a little bit about NEGREG and see if we can
    do a little more educating. Is it accurate that the NEGREG
    process was established by Congress?
        Secretary DEVOS. That is correct.
        Mrs. FOXX. Correct. Okay. So, the panel included--isn't it
    true that the panel included both the student representatives,
    State representatives, and a consumer advocate each with their
    own vote?
        Secretary DEVOS. Correct.
        Mrs. FOXX. Okay. It is my understanding also that the State
    attorney general did get a chance to weigh in through
    participation in a subcommittee. Is that correct?
        Secretary DEVOS. That would be correct.
        Mrs. FOXX. All right. So, the whole purpose of NEGREG is to
    ensure the voices of the stakeholders are at the table. Is that
    correct?
        Secretary DEVOS. Yes.
        Mrs. FOXX. That is how Congress wrote it into the law. Is
    that correct?
        Secretary DEVOS. That is correct.
        Mrs. FOXX. So, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary was skewered on
    the issue a little bit ago, on NEGREG, and I want to make it
    clear that if anybody wants to skewer anybody on the NEGREG
    process, it ought to be us because we set it up and not the
    Secretary.
        And with that, I will yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from
    Massachusetts, Ms. Trahan.
        Ms. TRAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for being here.
        Funding accessible, high-quality public education is an
    investment in our children, our economy, and our future. Yet we
    hear so many heart-wrenching stories in higher education where
    students and families from communities, like the one I grew up
    in, are cheated of their dreams.
        There are giant for-profits pouring money and resources
    into ads and recruitment, then collapsing without notice on
    tens of thousands of students leaving them in debt with useless
    college credits.
        From my own State of Massachusetts 24 colleges have shut
    their doors in the last 4 years, and 22 of them were for-
    profits. So, we have an epidemic of schools failing to create
    contingency plans, wasting taxpayer dollars without answering
    to anyone on their financial viability.
        So it is apparent to me now more than ever that we need
    protections in place and watchdogs to hold these institutions
    accountable. Under the last administration the Enforcement Unit
    was created to investigate abuses and protect students from
    getting ripped off.
        Secretary DeVos, at the start of your time at the Education
    Department, the Enforcement Unit was adequately staffed with
    lawyers and investigators who looked into misleading
    advertising, recruitment practices and job placement claims.
        But according to the last update that your staff submitted
    to this Congress, there are only two full-time investigators
    overseeing thousands of schools and 130 billion in taxpayer
    dollars. So, why the dramatic cut? And what specific
    enforcement actions has this unit of two taken to project our
    kids?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congresswoman, enforcement was a
    part of the Department, a part of Federal student aid before a
    separate unit was set up. It continues to be a very important
    part of the focus of Federal student aid. We take that very
    seriously and continue to do so. We are adequately staffed.
        Ms. TRAHAN. How many people are in charge of enforcing it?
        Secretary DEVOS. I don't have that number here. I would be
    happy to get that to you if you desire.
        Ms. TRAHAN. I would love that. You know, I don't have to
    tell you how valuable the data is in terms of identifying
    patterns or indicators for failing schools. And one thing that
    would be helpful is if the data that has been collected, is
    something that you can provide to this committee?
        So, we have heard plenty today about how we are scrambling
    to take care of students when these schools shut down. But
    nothing about preventing these closures from happening in the
    first place. Is that something you can deliver to this
    committee?
        Secretary DEVOS. I don't--if you have specific data you
    can--
        Ms. TRAHAN. Well, the data that is being collected from the
    Enforcement Unit.
        Secretary DEVOS. All of the data that is being collected?
        Ms. TRAHAN. In terms of what is being enforced. I mean,
    there is a unit of two people who were enforcing--
        Secretary DEVOS. There are more than two people involved in
    Enforcement. If you would like to submit a question for the
    record that clarifies what information you are seeking, we will
    be happy to respond.
        Ms. TRAHAN. I would like to know the specific enforcement
    actions by the unit of two, that was set forth in the GAO
    Report that was last submitted to this Congress?
        Secretary DEVOS. Yes.
        Ms. TRAHAN. Okay. Great. Let me ask another question. The
    gainful employment rule is a critical consumer protection tool
    that protects students from low-quality career training
    programs and for profit colleges. Secretary DeVos, did you or
    anyone from your Department ask Social Security or IRS
    officials directly or indirectly to prevent or delay the
    development of an MOU for gainful employment purposes?
        Secretary DEVOS. Congresswoman, we have continued to work
    on the gainful employment regulation. It is one with which we
    did not agree that policy with the previous administration.
        Ms. TRAHAN. That is fair. The question, though, is simple,
    and I hate to do this, but it is a yes or no. Did you or
    anybody in your Department talk to, directly or indirectly,
    with the SSA or the IRS about delaying an MOU for gainful
    employment purposes?
        Secretary DEVOS. I am not aware of that conversation, no.
        Ms. TRAHAN. You know, the Department has hidden behind this
    SSA legal decision as rationale for not implementing gainful
    employment rule even though we have done so for so many years.
    Can you share with this committee a copy of that legal opinion
    from SSA?
        Secretary DEVOS. Again, if you want to submit that as a
    question for the record, I would be happy to respond.
        Ms. TRAHAN. I will submit it in writing. You know, I press
    upon it because this legal opinion directly impacts your
    ability to protect our college students, which is something we
    so clearly need today.
        Madam Secretary, we have covered a lot of ground today, but
    given the irresponsible cuts to programs with a proven track
    record, the weak enforcement of predatory institutions, and
    your top hires are hailing from the for-profit industry, not to
    mention the discriminatory policies you have leveled against
    LGBT students, victims of sexual assault, and students of
    color.
        It is clear to me that you and your Department are either
    out of touch with people like me who relied on public education
    and was the first to graduate from college in my family, or you
    are knowingly putting special interests ahead of our students.
        I do not believe in this budget. It reveals that you and
    your Department are not equipped to set the educational
    priorities for this country.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Secretary DEVOS. If I could just comment, Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you.
        Secretary DEVOS. Congresswoman, you have mischaracterized a
    number of things, and I just want to call that to your
    attention, and just say that the budget that was submitted,
    those were proposals, as you know, and you and your colleagues
    will decide. And so I wanted to make sure to mention both of
    those things.
        Ms. TRAHAN. I appreciate that. But budgets are a reflection
    of our priorities.
        Secretary DEVOS. And we had to stay within Congress'
    bounds, so we had to submit a budget that was 10 percent lower
    than last year's.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. The gentlelady from Connecticut,
    Ms. Hayes.
        Ms. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam
    Secretary. I know personally that students, teachers, parents
    are waiting to hear from you, so I want to move this right
    along.
        So, I am going to let you know that my questions today will
    be singularly focused on using Federal funds to arm teachers,
    not about the Freedom Scholarship, not about professional
    development choice, not about career training.
        So, on May 21, 2018, the Superintendent of the Porter,
    Oklahoma, Consolidated School District, Charles McMann, wrote
    to President Trump saying, and I quote, ``We have implemented
    and armed staff policy at my school, and was wondering if there
    is any money or grants that can help. It would be great if
    there was some money for schools that arm and train their
    staff.''
        According to records received through a FOIA request by
    Democracy Forward, this letter was quickly transferred to the
    Department of Education for a response and became the subject
    of several emails and senior staff meetings.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter these
    documents.
        Chairman SCOTT. Without objection.
        Ms. HAYES. Madam Secretary, did the Department of Education
    provide a response, either orally or in writing, to
    Superintendent McMann's request to use Federal funds to arm
    teachers, yes or no?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congresswoman, it is not a yes or no
    answer. First of all--
        Ms. HAYES. Can you respond?
        Secretary DEVOS. I am sorry--
        Ms. HAYES. No. I am not going to let you do that, I saw
    you--
        Secretary DEVOS. I have never advocated for or against.
        Ms. HAYES. I didn't ask that question.
        Secretary DEVOS. I am for--
        Ms. HAYES. Madam Secretary, my question is, did you
    respond? And I know you know how to answer a yes or no question
    because I just saw you answer it from my colleague, Ms. Foxx.
        Secretary DEVOS. It is not a yes or no answer because--
        Ms. HAYES. I would just like the same courtesy. My question
    is, did you respond? That is it. Just did you respond, not what
    your response was. Did you respond? Just did you respond?
        Secretary DEVOS. Probably, ultimately, yes. Yes.
        Ms. HAYES. Okay. So there is a limited universe of how you
    could have responded to this request. Either yes, you can use
    Federal funds to arm teachers; yes, you can use Federal funds
    to train teachers; or no, you cannot use Federal funds to do
    any of these things. Do you know how your office--
        Secretary DEVOS. Congresswoman, Title IV was set up for
    States to decide how to use the funds.
        Ms. HAYES. Do you know--I am not there yet.
        Secretary DEVOS. It was set up for States to decide--
        Ms. HAYES. You are jumping way ahead.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. not for the Department of
    Education.
        Ms. HAYES. So, the Department of Education can't decide how
    Title I funds are used?
        Secretary DEVOS. Title IV funds are to be decided--
        Ms. HAYES. I am sorry. Title IV, I am sorry.
        Secretary DEVOS [continuing]. are to be decided by the
    States. That is how Congress set it up, and that is how we have
    totally respected that particular set up.
        Ms. HAYES. So, your position is that Title IV funds, it is
    not up to you to decide how they can be used?
        Secretary DEVOS. We have not advocated for, nor against,
    and have--
        Ms. HAYES. Do you feel like you can though?
        Secretary DEVOS. No. Congress set this up. The Department
    of Education did not.
        Ms. HAYES. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So, in August of
    2018, it was reported by the New York Times and other outlets
    that the Department was considering the use of Federal funds to
    arm teachers. In all of your previous statements and even just
    now, you have maintained that you lack the authority to approve
    or deny requests to purchase firearms for school staff and
    taxpayer money and using taxpayer funds under Title IV-A.
        Secretary DEVOS. That is correct because it is the State's
    decision.
        Ms. HAYES. That is correct, thank you, Mr. Chair. In the
    documents I have just submitted, there are emails from staff at
    your Department that discuss a decision memo on IV-A. Are you
    familiar with that decision memo?
        Secretary DEVOS. I am not with whatever memo you're citing.
        Ms. HAYES. Okay, so I will tell you what it says. On page 4
    of the memo that came out of your Department with the advice of
    your general counsel it says, ``The Department's Office of the
    General Counsel has advised that the Secretary has discretion
    to interpret the broad language of the statute as to its
    permissiveness regarding the purchase of firearms and the
    training and use of firearms.'' It continues on page 7 to say,
    ``It is, therefore, reasonable for the Secretary to disallow
    this particular use of funds absent, absent, specific
    congressional authorization. And it is unlikely that this
    interpretation would be subject to a successful legal
    challenge.''
        That is from your Department based on advice from your
    legal counsel. In light of the contents of this memo--
        Secretary DEVOS. And as I have said, I have neither
    advocated for nor against--
        Ms. HAYES. No, you are absolutely right, you have not
    advocated for or against. But in light of the contents of this
    memo, you have the ability to make a decision. Your silence is
    a decision. You have the authority to say that we cannot use
    Federal funds to arm teachers. You are in line for Presidential
    succession--
        Secretary DEVOS. States and local communities.
        Ms. HAYES. Make a decision on this. You have the authority
    to do it. Will you prohibit the use of Federal funds to arm
    teachers, yes or no, Madam Secretary?
        Secretary DEVOS. This is a matter for States and local
    communities to decide upon.
        Ms. HAYES. You have the authority to do it. Read your memo.
        Secretary DEVOS. Congress has the authority to make that
    decision.
        Ms. HAYES. You have the authority if you so choose. Read
    the memo.
        Chairman SCOTT. Does the gentlelady offer those documents
    for the record?
        Ms. HAYES. I do. I would like to submit these documents for
    the record so that the Secretary has the opportunity to read
    the memo that came from her office.
        Chairman SCOTT. Without objection. The gentleman from
    California, Mr. DeSaulnier.
        Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    you and the ranking member and the Secretary. We are almost
    through, Madam Secretary. I also want to acknowledge my friend,
    the ranking member and occasionally when we disagree, we do it
    in the spirit of friendship. So, I want to talk about public
    service loan forgiveness. This is the general--the GAO report
    on this. The Congress appropriated $2.3 million for 2018 and
    2019 to help with the problems that the ranking member alluded
    to in her comments.
        Now, this is in the context when I will respectfully
    disagree with her that this program, the first cohort that
    qualified for this program came about when your administration
    took place. So, Congress authorized this act, it is a statute
    and as you have recognized in your testimony, Congress does
    have a role in governing the Department of Education. This is a
    Federal law.
        You indicated in your comments when the ranking member was
    questioning you about this that, and I am inferring here, that
    you didn't think it was the best thing to decide what
    professions people go into. With all due respect, I don't read
    the statute as giving you that subjectivity. It is a statue if
    you want to change the statute, you should get a member to
    introduce something that will eliminate it.
        So, first question is how have you expended this $2.3
    million and how do you plan to expend it, because Congress gave
    it to you to help with the outreach given that only 1 percent
    of people who apply for this qualify. And I will say this in
    the context of my interest is personal because our district
    office in Northern California has had multiple people who were
    told by the service provider that they qualified. They made a
    decision. For 10 years they went into public service, the law
    is what it is and now they are being told that they don't
    qualify. You can imagine if you are living paycheck to paycheck
    and you made this career choice, I would imagine, that would be
    difficult. So, if we are going to change the law, we should do
    it constitutionally as prescribed. So, the question is, how
    have you spent the money?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congressman, first let me say I
    acknowledge it is not the Department of Education's role to
    change the law, it is your role to do so if that is to happen.
    That is why it is part of our budget proposal. But with regard
    to the actual implementation of and processing of applications,
    we are continuing to do so diligently. As I said before, this
    is a very--
        Mr. DESAULNIER. Pardon me, you are claiming my time, Madam
    Secretary and I don't want to be disrespectful.
        Secretary DEVOS. But this is very difficult.
        Mr. DESAULNIER. I had a specific question, how are you
    spending the money. So, if you could help me with specificity
    and I ask this question in the spirit of, I would like to fix
    the problem and I would be happy to work with you on it, given
    that the statute is the statute. People are suffering, they
    have been misled, so how do we help you administer the law
    properly? That is the spirit I ask the question. How are you
    spending the money?
        Secretary DEVOS. The program is a very difficult one to
    qualify for. 10 years before you even are considered, and 120
    consecutive payments. If someone makes a payment,--
        Mr. DESAULNIER. Madam Secretary, no, no, no.
        Secretary DEVOS. Can I just tell you one of the problems
    here?
        Mr. DESAULNIER. No, you cannot because I had a specific
    question.
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, if you want to know the problem I
    have to be able to tell you.
        Mr. DESAULNIER. Yes, but I want to be clear as to what I am
    asking. So, I have two simple questions. How are you spending
    the money that Congress appropriated for you in this Fiscal
    Year to help with communication? It was to get the service
    provider to help today if somebody calls. I acknowledge that
    you think it is complicated.
        Secretary DEVOS. The temporary program.
        Mr. DESAULNIER. So, how did you spend it, No. 1?
        And No. 2, so I don't have to interrupt you again, if you
    could just answer the questions, I would be satisfied. I
    don't--my mother taught me not to be rude and I am not trying
    to be rude. Second question is are you going to implement the
    four recommendations in the GAO report and do you have a
    timeline to do it as suggested by the GAO? Two questions. What
    are you doing with the money to help facilitate communication
    with the servers and when are you going to implement the GAO
    recommendations?
        Secretary DEVOS. For the $2.3 million, we will answer on a
    question for the record in detail. I don't have all of those
    details here with me.
        Mr. DESAULNIER. That would be good.
        Secretary DEVOS. So, I will be happy to provide those. But
    with regard to the program itself, the temporary program was a
    great step by Congress. However, it still doesn't take care of
    the fact that it is a very difficult program to qualify for.
    And if a student pays their loan a year in advance, that is not
    looked at as 12 payments, that is 1 payment. So, 120
    consecutive payments doesn't quite add up then over 10 years.
        Mr. DESAULNIER. Are you using the money so that the service
    provider can communicate this to that--
        Secretary DEVOS. Yes, of course.
        Mr. DESAULNIER. Okay, that is what the question was. To the
    degree that you can provide that to the committee in
    specificity, that would be appreciated. Second part is, when
    are you going to implement the general county offices
    recommendations?
        Secretary DEVOS. We have implemented all of them to my
    knowledge.
        Mr. DESAULNIER. That is not what the GAO says. So, can we
    get that straight, please? And with that, seriously, my office
    would like to work with your office. Your acknowledgement the
    statute is the statute--
        Secretary DEVOS. I would welcome that.
        Mr. DESAULNIER. People are suffering right now in terms of
    what we are telling them. And rather than bait and switch, we
    should help them as much as possible, I am sure you agree. And
    then if we need to change the statute, we are more than willing
    to work with you. Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. I think this is the final
    questioner. The gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Stevens.
        Ms. STEVENS. The gentlelady from Michigan addresses the
    Secretary of Education. I would like to talk to you a little
    bit about our home State of Michigan. Where decades of
    disinvestment in our schools has had an impact on our students.
    From 1995 to 2015, Michigan ranked last in total education
    revenue growth. And not surprisingly since 2003, Michigan ranks
    last in proficiency growth. And your budget proposal for the
    Department of Education requests an $8.5 billion decrease in
    spending and eliminates 29 programs. Do you mind explaining how
    disinvestment of this scale will serve our country's students
    when it has failed in Michigan?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, Congresswoman, we had to submit a
    budget that did reduce our overall spending by 10 percent
    because of Congress' requirements to hit those caps. So, we
    were following Congress' mandate in that regard. And we had to
    make difficult choices around what areas to propose cutbacks
    in. These are all proposals and you will all decide what you
    are going to spend. So, we submit them to you as proposals
    acknowledging that we tried to hold harmless those programs
    that are going to most benefit and most reach students who are
    most vulnerable and most in need of the assistance.
        Ms. STEVENS. And we certainly don't like to make
    determinations around which programs are successful versus
    which ones aren't just because of legacy considerations. I was
    particularly inspired by my colleague, Congressman Harder's
    questioning and around literacy which is certainly a pervasive
    issue in Michigan. And, you know, we don't cut fire departments
    or police departments just because crime is going up, you know,
    we figure out a way to double down and work together.
        My district is home to wonderful communities. I am a
    product of our public school system. I graduated from Seaholm
    High School. I don't know if you have ever had a chance to
    visit Seaholm.
        Secretary DEVOS. I have not but I have had friends that
    graduated from Seaholm.
        Ms. STEVENS. Excellent. Well, you know, one of the things
    in Michigan is we have the per pupil funding standards. And,
    you know, it strikes me that just because you are a resident of
    Birmingham, Michigan, and, you know, able to send your children
    to Seaholm, it shouldn't mean that if you are a resident of
    Detroit, per se, that you shouldn't have the same
    opportunities. You should be able to send your student to the
    same quality school. Is that what you would agree with?
        Secretary DEVOS. Well, I think every student should be able
    to find a school that works for them, yes.
        Ms. STEVENS. Right. And so, your budget proposes to
    eliminate billions of dollars in K-12 programs from
    professional development for teachers and principals to after
    school programming to mental health services and one of my
    personal favorites, STEM education. And obviously, we have
    heard you talk about some of the hard decisions that you have
    had to make yet somehow, we found, you found, $60 million for
    an increase in the Federal Charter School program. And I just
    really wonder if charter schools are the answer here where as
    it really should be the Title I funding.
        So, a recent report by the Network for Public Education
    found that more than $1 billion in Charter School Program funds
    have gone to support charter schools that have either, you
    know, they never opened or they have closed, they have kind of
    abandoned some of the children and families. And since 2010, 25
    schools in Michigan that have received $1.7 million in charter
    school funding just never even opened. And the Inspector
    General found waste, fraud, abuse due to the frequency of
    school closures in the Charter School Program.
        Can you just explain for me the mark of effective programs
    here and can you justify the proposed increase for the Charter
    School Program and on what measures or studies that you have
    been using?
        Secretary DEVOS. Let me first comment that the study you
    are referring to, I am not sure we can even call it a study. We
    are looking more closely at it, of course, and anything that is
    truly waste, fraud, or abuse, we will certainly address. But
    the reality is that study was really funded by and promoted by
    those who have a political agenda against charter schools.
        And the other reality is that there are currently over a
    million students on wait lists for charter schools in the
    country. So, we want to see more charter schools not fewer.
    More students that can access options that are right for them,
    not fewer.
        Ms. STEVENS. At the expense of public education funding?
        Secretary DEVOS. Charter schools are public schools.
        Ms. STEVEN. I would just say with the remaining seconds
    that I have left that roughly 20 percent of my district is
    under the age of 18 and those individuals are counting on us.
    And we are here to have some tough discussions about how we can
    improve the lives of our students and educational outcomes. And
    I very much appreciate that the title of this hearing,
    Examining the Policies and Priorities of the U.S. Department of
    Education, revealed some of your priorities to us. Thank you.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. We have come to the end of the
    hearing and I want to remind my colleagues that pursuant to
    committee practice, materials for submission of the record must
    be submitted in proper form within the next 14 days. I want to
    remind the Secretary, that she will be receiving questions for
    the record and the hearing record will be held open for 14 days
    to receive your responses. And pursuant to committee practice,
    witnesses, witness questions for the record must be submitted
    to committee staff within the next 7 days.
        I now recognize the ranking member, Dr. Foxx, for your
    closing Statement.
        Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank
    you for your participation in this hearing. It is clear to us
    on the Republican side of the aisle that you are committed to
    implementing the laws as Congress wrote them. It is also clear
    to us you are doing everything in your power to help students
    and families understand and pursue the education opportunities
    they choose so they may realize the American dream. And for
    that, we and the American people are grateful for your tireless
    efforts.
        In the Higher Ed Accountability hearing, Representative
    Adams gave us all a definition of bipartisanship. This hearing
    could use a working definition of accountability since that is
    the entire premise behind having a cabinet official testify.
    Accountability is asking an agency official a tough question
    and listening for the answer before deciding they are wrong, is
    not grilling the witness and talking over them the moment you
    don't here what you wanted to hear.
        My Democrat colleagues have tried for the better part of 4
    hours to twist your words out of context. After doing so, they
    did not allow you to respond and instead, filled the time with
    what they wanted to hear. Chairman Scott, the gentleman that he
    is, has tried to correct this on a few occasions this afternoon
    and I thank him for that courtesy.
        This is a gotcha hearing, not an honest attempt to learn
    how the government can better serve students. The arrogance
    exhibited in this committee today has been breathtaking.
    Indeed, rarely have I heard so many people tell you how to do
    your job and say they know how to do it better than you do. In
    your opening comments, you reminded us of Congress' commitment
    when the Department of Education was created 40 years ago. You
    reminded us that at that time, Congress vowed that it would
    ``not increase the authority of the Federal Government over
    education or diminish the responsibility for education which is
    reserved from the States.'' I promise you; I am going to start
    quoting that a lot and I thank you for bringing it to our
    attention.
        I have to tell you, a lot of the things I am hearing my
    Democrat colleagues try to get you to commit to doing sounds a
    little bit of a set up. They want you to commit to doing what
    we all agreed decades ago was not the mission of the Department
    of Education. And they argue that you are not doing your job
    because you haven't overstepped your authority or don't agree
    with their priorities.
        Madam Secretary, you said today that if a school does not
    serve the best interest of students, it should not continue to
    operate. I could not agree with you more. This is especially
    important when it comes to overseeing institutions of higher
    education.
        Republicans are equally committed to holding all
    institutions accountable for the educational outcomes of their
    students. I look forward to working with you to reform the HEA
    to make sure all students at all institutions get the service
    they deserve. And when we bring out some other statistics that
    haven't been brought out, I think we will see the need to hold
    all institutions accountable. You have a number of tools at
    your disposal to come down on bad actors. As I said, any
    institution that does not serve students should not continue to
    exist and you said as much earlier in the hearing.
        I want to thank you for your commitment to implement
    policies in the best interest of students and taxpayers. You
    should know, as I hope you already know, that Republicans look
    forward to standing with you to protect students access to
    educational opportunities to make a better life for themselves
    and I would welcome our Democrat colleagues to make the same
    commitment. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman SCOTT. Thank you. And Madam Secretary, I want to
    thank you for being with us today. You will be receiving, as I
    indicated, questions for the record to clarify some of the
    things that came up. One of the areas you can expect questions
    would be the reinstatement of ACICS. We had asked you questions
    about this before, particularly in light of the fact that there
    seem to be--they seem not to qualify under the rules for
    reinstatement.
        And also, questions about the subsequent firing and
    reinstatement of the Inspector General which appeared to be
    part of that same process.
        You were asked about the Obama guidance that was rescinded
    under your administration on racial diversity K-12 and higher
    education and you seemed to be a little unclear on that. We
    will be following through to see what you are doing on that
    particularly in light of the GAO report.
        There are two court orders that are pending, one on the
    equity and idea rule. The court has ordered that be implemented
    immediately. Another on borrowers defense where there is a
    court order and there are over 100,000 students waiting for
    relief.
        There was a question on the waivers and what information is
    being published. It appears to me that what is being published
    is the fact of the waiver, not the application to see what was
    being waived or the rationale for the decision. And so, we will
    be following up on that.
        And ESSA implementation, you indicated that you are
    following the rules but we were informed that several States
    are failing to disaggregate data by race which would make it
    impossible. If they are not providing that information, you
    can't ascertain whether there are achievement gaps or if
    anything is being done. We will be following through on that.
        And finally, the tax credit program where you said it is
    contributions. With 100 percent tax credit, it is not a
    contribution because it is 100 percent reimbursed as a tax
    credit. We have also indicated if you could find $5 billion in
    the tax expenditure, at the same time we are cutting the
    education budget $8 billion, you frequently referred to the
    fact that the budget is being cut 10 percent. We were required
    to cut 10 percent but, in fact, the budget was cut 12 percent
    which meant that maybe some of those literacy programs and
    others would not have to be cut.
        But you will be getting those questions and we can clarify
    those answers. But I wanted to express my appreciation for your
    being here. We apologize for the time taken to go vote and that
    extended the time a little bit. I want to thank the Ranking
    Member for being here the whole time and thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for being with us and allocating time so that
    everybody could ask questions.
        With that, is there any further business before the
    Committee? If not, the committee stands adjourned.
        [Additional submissions by Mr. Courtney follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submission by Mrs. Foxx follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Ms. Fudge follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Ms. Hayes follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Mr. Levin follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Ms. McBath follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions by Mr. Morelle follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Questions submitted for the record and their responses
    follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon at 2:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]