Thanks. Hi. Im diane eikenberry. Im a senior attorney, and i work with detained children in o. R. Custody in virginia and maryland. I sort of have two questions but theyre related to training and stakeholder relations and sort of two parts for barbara and maria. First maria, i want to thank you so much for the wonderful work that the young center does. Thanks. Ive had the pleasure of working with one of your child advocates out of the office in harlingen. You make a great difference. Im so excited youre opening new offices because we need more of your work. Thanks. But barbara, you mentioned theres expanded training for the Immigration Judges. Can you speak a little bit about that . And also maybe generally about what kind of training, if any, is required for Immigration Judges around issues relating to these unaccompanied minors. So we have done some training with the Immigration Judges, you know. Some of you know because of budgetary issues, weve had to have our conferences on dvd for our judges. We had planned a conference actually this summer, a live inperson conference that we had to postpone in part because of the surge, and we didnt want to take all the judges off the dockets for a week. But we are planning on having a conference at some point where we expect to have a full day of a kids track for for the judges that handle kids cases. And, you know, like marias a frequent appearer at all of those. You know, we really do try and bring in the outside experts, bring in the people who do some of the work more directly with the kids, the stuff that comes before they get to see the judge. So, you know, and we listen well reach out to some of the judges and say what are you interested in knowing more about . You know, we look at whats happening sort of this summer and, you know, have looked at what are things that might be more important . You know, should we have a particular panel on, you know, asylum claims that are really specific to these types of kids so . So we anticipate having a full day just for kids. And i expect, what i understand from the judges ive talked to, i expect its going to be really popular given the fact that we have so many judges now hearing the kids cases. And when we have our training, we record it all. So that, like, if theres a judge who really wants to go to another panel at that time, they can request to see it at another time like on dvd. You know, we understand that training is important. So we are expanding it with respect to dealing with the kids and how to make sure that procedures are appropriate for the kids and to the specialized needs of what the kids both need in a courtroom and there are types of relief that are just for them, right . Like special immigration juvenile status, you know. Thats just for them. So to talk about what some of those things are as well. Professor, may i ask a question . Sure, go ahead. Maria, just speaking of stakeholder relations, you mentioned the bestinterest document, this being worked on by the interagency working group. Is that the main way in which the young center has had relations with dhs . Do you guys have another any other sort of stakeholder relationships, especially with the office of chief counsel, and do you anticipate this is a document, once completed, that could be, you know, we could be providing or sort of collaborating with the trial attorneys . Yeah, i mean, we work with all of the agencies. And i just have to say that i mean, dhs has been one of the really good agencies to work with. I mean, the enforcement people have been wonderful. And again, i go back to this point that i think those charged with enforcement and decisionmaking have a really hard time having to do this with a child. In terms of the document, you know, we hope to finish it in the next couple of months. It has to go to the full interagency. Its been a subcommittee. It has to go to the full interagency working group, and thats all of the agencies plus ngos, most of whom are in this room today. And yes, that will be shared. I mean, it will be in two pieces. One will have footnotes. And the other piece, though, will be kind of a stepbystep heres what you would do if youre in the field to make sure youre looking at a childs best interests. So yes, that will thats the intention is to share it widely. Yes. Sounds wonderful. Thank you. Thanks for those questions, diane. Well go from side to side. On this side, please identify yourself. My name is constance freeman, and i work with the Community Outreach program. I work with a lot of the children after the o. R. R. Process. So i see them months, sometimes years, after theyve been released from the shelters. And im concerned, one about how many of the 14 to 15yearolds specifically that are not enrolled in school. And i want to know, how can we get that collaboration with the agencies to make sure that they are staying in school . Because i dont have a problem with accepting children and making sure theyre in school, but if theyre 14 years old and theyre out, im not sure that were not putting them at risk, that theyre run ago way from. And then also, i have a followup question for the ambassador from el salvador. I was amazed at how many children in those three countries are not in school. And i noticed in one of the south american countries, kids get, like, 80 or something to go to school, and if they get good grades, they get 100 bolivianos. I was wondering if those three countries could use funds from the Multinational Companies to fund so that the kids are in school and theyre not coming here without a day of education. So, i mean, ill take the first question. I mean, i think there arent enough resources anywhere. None of the agencies well, eoar doesnt have enough or o. R. R. Doesnt have enough. I will also say that recently ive heard that o. R. R. Is doing a lot to start providing more postrelease services for children. And i think theyve recently issued grants to start providing so after the child is released, theres somebody who is available to stay in contact, a social worker, for example. And to help make sure the kids go to school. So, again, though, i mean, i think some of it goes back to resources. And of course, everybody wants the kids in school, but i think we need more resources so that there can be more postrelease services for the kids. And i agree that after the kids get released i mean, sometimes theyre even more vulnerable than when theyre in custody. A child advocate stays with the child to the extent that the child wants. Kids can lose us, if they really want to. But i think this you know, we need these postrelief services for many more kids. You were right. One of the unfortunately, we have so many other countries with fairly low level of school attendance. Now, a couple of things. The new government has established three priorities. One of them being education. So education is going to be a priority in this administration. Second, there is a program thats starting now of conditional Cash Transfer precisely around those lines to give some economic support to families that keep the kids in school. Similar to something thats happening already in terms of health. Theres a task Condition Program to support mothers who take regularly their kids to the Health Clinics for control and so forth. And the third thing is that ironically, one of the reasons that we have had a lot of youth involvement in the gangs is that at some point during the 80s, in order to make more efficient the school infrastructure, schools started working on two shifts. So kids would be go in the morning, a group of kids would be in school in the morning, and another group of kids would go in the afternoon. What happened is that you have a lot of kids having a lot of free time. And this was something that created, among other things, many other things, but this also was a part of why a lot of kids joined the gangs. So one of the things that are being done now is to expand the program called fulltime schooling. The idea is to keep the kids as much time as possible in the school doing extracurricular activities. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is anna gutierrez. Im a state legislator here in maryland. Originally from el salvador. Many questions, but i want to concentrate on something that we have been advocating for both locally, we formed a d. C. , maryland and Virginia Coalition to work with the students. And i think many of us in the audience probably are dealing more with what to do with those students once they come to our neighborhoods and in our states because it doesnt end with the federal role. But the federal role is important. One of the issues that we did was bring up Service Providers from around the nation to seek the legal representation issue. And im surprised that you havent mentioned or anybody has mentioned the disparities in the way that the legal the courts are working. We raised it, and what we saw are some states like maryland has a very friendly it has the first hearing, according to your 21day guideline, and then maybe the second one with sufficient time to prepare to get legal representation. There are other states, new york and california, where the Service Providers are just are just in desperation because of the rocket dockets. Could you address, what are the possibilities of your organization, barbara, to provide something more than just a 21day guidance . Because the response we heard was that a lot of the Immigration Courts are being left to the discretion of the state and of that court. And therefore, youre seeing this in unequal application and practices from one state to the other. And i think thats a very serious concern. So i just want to clarify that your question is about the Immigration Court system and not the Juvenile Court system in the state. No, not the Juvenile Court. No, the ones who are dealing with the children, the ones that have that first hearing. Right. I mean, the two are bizarrely interconnected, as maria mentioned. Juvenile courts are state court. Correct. Theyre not being called to a Juvenile Court. Theyre being called well, some of them are. With respect to one thing thats really interesting about this group of cases for our system, which can be very frustrating at times, is that some of the relief that is available to these children, and the relief that they seek, is adjudicated outside our court system. And so one of the forms of relief that they seek is special immigration juvenile status. So when a judge is trying to figure out, you know, how much time he should give a child thats looking to seek special immigrant juvenile status, they have to figure, okay, well, uscis is going to have to adjudicate a benefits application. Before the kid can go foreward, they have to go to state court juvenile proceedings. And so, you know, that does provide a real logistical challenge for us because there are states in which, you know, and counties in which, you know, as maria mentioned, a child can go to state Court Proceedings and get an order in three days. There are other places, chicago being one of them, where it takes just a really long time. And so when a judge is trying to figure out when to reschedule the kid, those things can come in. Now, with respect to what our guidance has been to judges for Immigration Court, the guidance that we give Immigration Judges is nationwide. Right . So its not were limited. We have one Immigration Court that has 59 locations. Its like what we like to say is the guidance that we give judges. It doesnt vary by being in one state or another. The guidance that weve given is that the children that are identified by dhs as priority cases get their first hearing within 21 days. Thereafter, the judge can continue if the child asks for a continuance, can continue the case in accordance with the law thats on the books right now. Its a goodcause standard. And then the judge determines in his or her discretion how long that continuance should be. And that and so it will vary with respect to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. What weve heard is that as routine in these two states, they are being called for their second appearance very shortly after the first appearance, without any possibility of legal representation to be, one, identified, and two, to be prepared. And that that is really even interfering because they then have to go in and file another motion. Im not a lawyer, but this is what ive heard over and over again is whats been happening. So it seems to me that because you are one centralized system with 59 representatives, that clarification of what would be expected. And even if there is no best interest of the child in written law, clearly in every state, i can tell you in my state, that is the guiding principle. And if that is not what is in practice being respected, i think theres something wrong. Right. So we did issue guidance on september 10th. That specifies that there are no there are no extra laws relating to how short continuances need to be or how long they need to be with respect to children. Only just that they do take a priority on the docket so that the continuance should be granted with respect to the facts and circumstances of the case rather than the courts docket. So, you know, we heard this concern, and we did issue guidance on september 10th. Yes . Yes. Go right ahead. Thanks. My name is ashima. Im an immigration attorney turned documentary filmmaker. Were working on a film specifically about this issue, Central American refugees filming in Central America but also some of the issues that were seeing in the u. S. My question is more for barbara as well. I wanted you to address some of the concerns identified by attorneys who have been volunteering at our facility. I know thats, you know, a family Detention Center, but nevertheless, some of the concerns thats putting it lightly, just some of the fasttrack deportations, the no access to sometimes translators, interpreters, longdistance judges who arent well versed in the law or the cases. I know things are improving, but from, you know, some of the reports i read, and people i talked to, its nowhere near where it should be. Do you have a specific concern in mind that you want me to address . Well, i mean, i havent read anything because i have been researching this particular topic. I havent read anything that the government has put forth to talk about artesia, but i read a lot from attorneys. Right. So i think with you know, with respect to family detention, i guess its somewhat germane given that there are children there, too. Theyre not accompanied. You know, with respect to the detention of families, you know, the artesia facility was put up quickly in response to the surge this summer. I think whats frustrating for i think us as an agency is that so much of the Detention Center and the concerns with respect to the Detention Center are out of our hands with respect to decisionmaking. You know, i. C. E. Handles detention. So when there are larger issues that i think people have brought to our attention, you know, so, for example, people have said, look, the tvs there are really tiny. And so when the judge is beaming in, you know, what you see on the side of the detainee is, you know, the individual the families who are there, theyre having a hard time seeing the judge. When we hear that kind of stuff, and people are very vocal with us to let us know what the issues are, you know, we cant buy new tvs and install them, right . Dhs does that. Its their facility. What we can do is go to dhs and say look, wed really like to change these tvs out. And so i think what were doing is on a very daily basis, having a lot of conversations with our counterparts at dhs about how to respond to some of the things that we can respond to. I think a lot of the criticism that weve heard overall from some of the advocates is that there is, you know, a generalized belief that families shouldnt be detained. Right . And so, to the extent that thats that that is what were hearing, you know, i with tell you that that is you know, thats a decision thats made sort of out of my hands, and certainly out of my logistical hands. And so one of the things we also heard was, look, youve got judges in one time zone. Youve got artesia in another time zone. Thats causing just confusion. So we changed from the judges in arlington hearing the cases to the judges in denver hearing the cases because now theyre all in the same time zone. And so we are trying were also working a lot, i think, with, you know, the bar in denver even before the cases got moved to denver were really active in trying to do pro bono with the folks in artesia. And so, you know, denver was a good spot because we thought we could assist in trying to make it a little easier on some of the pro bono attorneys there. So i think were doing what we can, you know, recognizing that, you know, we have to continue a dialogue with people. About what are the things we can do, particularly some of the smaller, you know, what are some of those small things that seem, well, why cant you just do it . Why cant you just buy the bigger tvs kind of thing, right . And working with our partners. I mean, understanding, of course, that there are a lot of limitations on us as the agency dealing with the Detention Center that we dont have control over. Thank you, barbara. Thank you. Hi there. My name is deana. Im a student here at georgetown law. Im here with fellow classmates of mine. We are part of a Campus Organization that has created the International Migrants bill of rights. And our specific project this semester is focused on Detention Centers in mexico. And we are creating a list of indicators to suggest that these Detention Centers go through. My indicator is focused on family unification. So i was wondering if anyone on the panel is able to offer myself and my classmates some advice and realities on what is going on in these Detention Centers, specifically with unaccompanied minors, whether their family or guardians are in mexico or country of origin or in the united states. Excellent start to conducting research on that issue. Its due thursday. Does anybody want to tell deana what we know about that situation . To the extent we know anything . I dont know much at all. Why dont we know much . Maria . Because we need students to do some research. And tell us whats going on. Were all looking forward to reading your results. And you need to travel there and talk to people and really yeah, and figure out whats going on. If georgetown funds our travels, that would be great. Im focused on new mexico right now. So perhaps, though, the ambassador, you talked about, i guess, both having a consulate in border states. I assumed you were talking about u. S. Border states. But after all, mexican southern border plays a huge role here. Maybe the borders of other states on the way up for the children particularly in roles here. Do we know anything about that . Well, what we have done is, we are mostly working with guatemala in establishing a joint consulates in mexico, particularly in the road, or the path of the migrants. So the idea is that if guatemala has a consulate in this town and we dont have one, that we can share those facilities and vice versa. We have increased our conversations with the Mexican Government also to try to provide a little bit more protection to the migrants. And i dont have any specifics on how this is going. What i can tell you is that there is an Excellent Network of shelters and of efforts provided by Civil Society who are doing an incredible, incredible job in assisting the migrants, providing them with shelter, with food, et cetera. And there is theres a serious, serious network of these type of support going on in mexico. I think more than ill leave it like that. Okay. Thank you. Have you had good cooperation with the Mexican Government over these issues . In some cases, yes. There have been, as you are very well aware, very horrendous incidents that happened. A group of 60, 70 migrants had been killed. In those cases, there have been sometimes mixed results because it is presumed that there is involvement of at certain levels of some authorities. The drug dealers are a big problem, a big problem. It is very clear that Drug Trafficking network is now together with the smuggling. And as i mentioned before, its become even in some cases, they say Better Business to Human Trafficking and smuggling than Drug Trafficking. Thank you. Mr. Ambassador. Ashley. Good afternoon. My name is ashley. Im with the Georgetown Institute for women, peace and security. The panel mentioned that were seeing a particularly large increase in the number of girls that are crossing the border. I was wondering if you could address why that is, what particular genderbased vulnerabilities were seeing at play. And then as a twopart question, how the system is treating that in particular in trainings, at eoar when youre working with these young girls. Thank you. Talk about the training. Yeah. I mean, i think were seeing more girls. I mean, i think its because of the safety issues in these countries and, you know, if youre a parent here and i also want to add, i mean, 55 of the kids are being are coming and reunifying with parents which goes back to the whole issue around no cir. But if youre a parent here and youre worried about your daughter, youre going to youre going to bring her. And i think that we work with a number of girls who are victimized by the gangs. You know, rape is one of the things that they use against the girls. So i think thats the primary reason why were seeing more girls. And i dont know if this has slowed down at all, but we have seen many more younger kids under the age of 13. And again, i think this is for the same reason. You have either parents in home country who are worried about their kids and want them to be safe or, you know, youve got family here that want their children to be safe. I think with respect to certain with the sensitivities to young girls in particular, so its important to note that while there are increases in the number of young girls, an increase in the number of tenderaged children, its still you know, the majority were still seeing is, like, older boys. Didnt the age drop to 13, 14 compared to 16, 17 . Thats what the government reported back in late june. Am i wrong about that . Yeah, i think were seeing more in this group. Right. But i think overall, if youre looking at how many kids are currently processing through the Immigration Court system, you know, were still very heavy on older boys. But to be, you know, but as were responding to this group thats coming in and were seeing them now, you know, weve always known, and theres always been a group of vulnerable young girls in our courts. And so when weve had trainings on childsensitive issues, weve looked into talking to the judges about some of the issues that might be not exclusive to young girls but more prone in terms of prostitution and the trafficking. And, you know, rape on the way here and how to handle that kind of thing. You know, and judges judges will, and i think, you know, maria gave some example of this to say, you know, look, it looks like somethings going on here. Youre not ready to talk about whats happened to you. And then they look you know, oh this goes back to, you know, a judge being able to look at the individual facts and circumstances of the case. And say, okay, this looks like a case where i might have to give, you know, this kid a continuance for a lot longer and talk to a Legal Service provider that might be there and say, look, is this something that you can, you know, try and get this kid some help so that they can better articulate whats going on. But again, this may go towards looking at some of the genderbased asylum claims, looking at issues and that kind of thing. You know, with respect to the funding that we had for Legal Services and the Justice Americorps program, we focused on the program will serve children who are 15 and under. And in part, thats a response to the increased tenderage kids that we were seeing. Because the funding will only go so far. We will only be able to serve so many kids. And so knowing that those kids are probably, you know, a little bit more vulnerable or less able to articulate themselves, thats where we concentrated our funding. Thanks, barbara. Maria, you want to add . I just wanted to add one thing. I think its not only the judges, but i think there can be training for lawyers and anybody who works with kids. I mean, we have done this, asked the judge to close the courtroom because its somebody, either a girl whos got to testify about very specific and traumatizing information or a boy or, i mean, you can do that. And i think, though, there needs to be more training for anybody whos representing kids. And the other thing ill say and its something that i wish we could import from the Child Protection system. In Child Welfare we have Child Advocacy centers, and theyre in most jurisdictions, if the child is abused in some way, the child goes to the Child Advocacy center. Everybody sits in a room behind a they call it mirrored glass. Somebody who knows how to intera child, and they interview the child. The police are behind the glass, the person representing the child. So the child only has to be interviewed once and that report is made available. Its something that i wish that we it would probably mean we need to get i. C. E. To work with the Child Advocacy centers around the country, to start doing that. Its so much better for kids. They have to tell their stories over and over and over and its really difficult. Were running out of time. Two of the three questioners who are former students, well allow each of them to pose a question. But do me a favor, michael, start with a question. Ill have each of you just pose your question, then well have the group answer them as a whole, if thats okay with everybody. Well start with michael. Thank you. Ill try to be fast. Im a member of the new york city bar associations immigration nationality committee, and right to due process and right to counsel. I would like to ask a question about the right to counsel. We framed that issue in terms of what we call the three cs, complexity, capacity and consequences. Immigration law is extremely complex. Maybe second only to tax law here in the united states. Children simply dont have the capacity to represent themselves even though the Immigration Courts presume they do. And i need not say anything about the grave consequences. The way we framed it is, when you bring the three factors together, the confluence of those three really is a perfect storm of due process violation. So my main question to you is, its great that we see resources being poured into this from cities, from states, and from the federal government. And that were sort of rallying the pro bono crowd to the cause. But from my perspective, thats really a needs based approach rather than a rights based approach. So im wondering what we can do to vindicate what we see as an absolute right to counsel. Thank you, michael. My name is jonathan ryan. We provide Legal Services to the unaccompanied children who are detained in san antonio. We spent the greater part of our summer working with the children at Lackland Air Force base. Between june 9 and july 28th, we met with over 2,100 children. We provided legal consultations and determined over 63 of them have strong cases for asylum or other forms of humanitarian relief. That is a number ratified by the unhdr findings and that were receiving positive adjudications in those cases. Im just bit comments of the ambassador regarding the motivations for these children to come, ive heard that, these are the most dangerous countries in the world that theyre coming from, but really, theyre just coming here because of the rumors spread by smugglers. Thats like saying people are jumping out of burning buildings because firemen are down there to catch them. These are refugees. Regarding the id like to know how its ensuring that the children are returned to their country, and whether youre taking any measures currently prevent children from exiting your country. Id also like to know from the Immigration Court, if you could unpack some of the reasons and motivations for the prioritizations. Ive been practicing in Immigration Courts for over ten years. What im seeing currently right now is a whole lot of nothing going on. The judges do not make many adjudications in the cases of the unaccompanied children. Im seeing the judge talking to the little children, saying, thats a nice pink shirt you have, how are you doing, and resetting the cases. There arent a lot of decisions being made right now in the san antonio Immigration Court. We have active 42a, longterm permanent residents waiting even longer waiting to get their cases decided. The children can wait, meanwhile the important cases seem to be pushed back. Id like to know what was the reason for that. Thanks for bringing that out. Last, but not least. Not a lot has been said about the root causes, not the topic of the panel, but a question that needs to be said, that a lot of kids are showing up vulnerable and terrorized and victimized as a direct result of the u. S. Policies in the region. And the countries are client states from the united states, weve been intervening financial aid, and militarily in the last 100 years. And interviewing in koups directly. And so my question is, it doesnt seem like anything is going to change in regards to those policies anytime soon. So while the numbers of kids may go up and down, it doesnt seem like in the medium or long term this is going to change. Our federal agencies, providers, people representing kids in court, are they thinking strategically for the long term in how to deal with these kids, how do we protect them and take care of them, you know, 10, 20, 30 years from now . Its hard to believe the flow is going to end. Thank you, daniel. So i think the best way to proceed, given that we now have physically run out of time is just ask each of our panelists to say a few words. I would encourage you to address any of the particulars of the questions towards you, for example. Why dont we start with you, ambassador, and well go down the route. First, if i didnt i thought i said that i still believe that the traditional causes of migration, violence, looking for Economic Opportunities and family reunification were all the reasons for immigration. That didnt explain the specific surge weve seen in the past two years. That is where i think the roles of the smugglers comes. And this is not to diminish the importance of the other causes. Which are, of course, the more structural causes of the problem. What are we doing in our country to try to prevent this . We are doing campaigns, media campaigns to educate people about the risks, and about the fallacy that they are going to receive green cards and citizenship. So those perhaps do not explain by itself, that the increase in the numbers of kids coming. There are weather reasons, and cyclical reasons that i mentioned. But these campaigns are going on in the three countries, and are starting to have an impact. We are also working in strengthening the control of our borders, and going after the trafficking networks. In terms of as i mentioned also, these are not shortterm measures. This resolution is not shortterm. These are medium to longterm solutions. In security, for example, which is very complex, we started now doing certain concrete things, like implementing fullfledged community policing. This is an idea in which the police, instead of just being a force that will react to a 9 11 corridor, or whatever, the idea is that they are members of the community, the police stay there. They are local actors, and become local actors. And this is by far been proving to be one of the best policies to confront violence and provide better citizen security. As i said, the longterm solution is economic development. This is something that cannot be done from one day to the other one. But that is where we are all aiming in the medium and short term to invest in the territory that are the ones that produce the more number of migrants. Thank you, mr. Ambassador. Barbara . So, to the first issue about the right versus needs based counsel. Were sued by folks, so i cant really speak to that one. Got a couple of my lawyers in the back over there. So well leave that to the advocates to talk about. Lawyers dont let you talk, right. No. Beads of sweat on their faces. The next one with the rationale. The rationale for setting sort of that 21day goal for the first master calendar, it was our agencys response to the president s directive to process the kids. I think with respect to, you know, there are cases, if you look at our adjudication time lines and how long it takes to get the kids through the Immigration Courts, there are courts if you filed a notice for the kids, they wouldnt get a hearing for a year. The idea is you get the kids started in the process. So if what happens is that the judge says, look, do you want an attorney, heres a list, if you want to start trying to find an attorney, this is what you need to do. Or here are the types of relief that could be available to you. Talk to me about what your circumstance is. And essentially, to start at the beginning of the process, start early, in whats your story, whats going on with you, to try and figure it out a year earlier than maybe it would have happened three years ago. I dont think there is an expectation that the childs case is going to be over in 21 days. Like i said before, there are a lot of aspects of relief for these kids. They are completely out of the hands of the Immigration Judges. The uscis is first. The visas are handled by uscis. A lot of the sij is handled by uscis. And some of the state courts. So to the extent theres a sense that judges are a ringleader, i think thats not a great term. But i would say, you know, they do sort of oversee a lot of things going on with these kids. And they arent necessarily in talk to me about your circumstances and start at the beginning of the process, start early in what is your story. Whats going on to try to figure it out a year earlier then maybe it would have happened three years ago. I dont think there is an expectation that the childs cases would be over in 21 days or like i said before, there is a lot of aspects of relief for these kids that are out of hands of Immigration Judges. A lot of that is handled by the state courts. To the extent that the judges are a ringleader, thats not a great term, but they do oversee a lot of things going on with these kids. They arent necessarily in charge of the forms of rethat may be available to them. They know how to assess the facts and circumstances of the case to make sure that a childs rights are protected. Thank you, barbara. Maria . I will go back to the question about the right to counsel. Obviously i dont think anybody in this room would not agree that children need counsel and there should be a right to counsel. I dont think you will find anyone here. I dont think so. I wasnt looking at you for a reason. I think we need a change in the law. I think there some in the government that think we can provide counsel for everyone. I think its a beginning that they are providing and paying for attorneys to provide direct representation. Its the beginning. Its not everything. We did get a provision in the senate bill last year that would have provided counsel for all children. Thats a start. I think we will all have to start over on that. I guess in terms of root causes, i dont think on my side of the table we are doing enough. I think its something we all have to talk about. I think it is a regional issue. I think we need to work with el salvador with a child at risk of going back to el salvador or has no choice to work with people in the government there. Find a way to get the child back safely or connect him or her to other and i think obamamented more money to deal with root causes and he didnt get that and its a lot of money. We need more resources for everyone in the region and agencies doing the work and we need a best interest standard. I want to thank all of you for your questions and panelists for the discussion. Please join me in giving them a round of applause. This weekend on cspan. Author and president of arabs for israel. I have arrived late at night almost september 11th morning. I arrived in my home in los angeles. I oak up at 6 00 a. M. L. A. Time to see the second airplane hit in the twin tower live. I was traumatized. Because that was when i knew this is terrorism. Its not one airplane accident. Please thanks four panelists and give them a round of applause snpz Thomas Lorenzen explains the new carbon emigs reduction deal announced this week u. S. Even chinese leaders. There is a debate over civil asset laws and the history of those Reform Efforts an renewed focus on police abuse. Lus your phone calls Facebook Comments cspan. Org. Join the cspan conversation. Like us on facebook. Follow us on twitter. A recent discussion at the center for American Progress looked at how public universities are funded and ways to make college more affordable. The Panel Includes education under secretary ted mitchell and college administrators. This is just over an hour. Good morning. Welcome to the center for American Progress. Im happy to see so many people here this early on a monday morning after a delightful fall weekend in our nations capital. We are here today to release a report, issue brief, an interactive website that highlights findings of the significant body of work done over the last several months by the post secondary Education Team here at the center for American Progress. We call that body of work a Great Recession, a great retreat. Public investment in Higher Education is vital to the performance of our economy. Colleges, universities, offer citizens a path toward economic opportunity. And a substantial return on Public Investment. Force is needed for an economic experience through sustained employment, higher earnings, new and continued Business Development and ultimately higher tax revenues. But there are troubling signs. After the Great Recession, states have withdrawn Public Investment in Higher Education. And many students from low and middle income families have been pushed out of publish colleges and universities. For this reason, we call for a new federal state partnership to ensure that high quality programs remain affordable in a central tenant of the american dream. Throughout the last quart ert of the 20th century the share of lowincome family have increased. Despite significant investments by the federal government and programs like pell grants and the American Opportunity task credit. The additional investments in pell grants total more than 50 billion. But the federal investment has not been sufficient. During the same period, states were investing in higher edge education. Since the onset of the Great Recession, 38 states in blue decreased the amount of direct funding to Public Colleges. Eight states in gray on the slide had neutral changes in funding. Just four states in orange increased the amount of direct funding to Public Colleges. I found it interesting that the four states that increased the amount of direct funding for public Higher Education were states like north dakota, wyoming, illinois and west virginia. We know that what has been happening in north dakota, additional tax revenues through energy exploitation. But they didnt have to reinvest in Higher Education, but they did anyway. All 50 states decreased the share of revenue from State Government reflected in blue on the chart. 47 states increased their reliance on tuition revenues from students and families in orange. So despite the increase in funding, the share of revenue from State Governments declined in all but three states, north dakota again, connecticut and maine. Increasing the reliance on tuition and fees. At all income levels and at both twoyear and fouryear institutions, the states that cut the most in orange charged the highest net price. And higher net price means greater borrowering and higher levels of debt which diminish education access. And the cuts were focused on Community Colleges, which saw enrollment increases by 20 while enrollment at public fouryear colleges increased by only 10. 6 . Suspending per student has been cut in 45 states compared to 39 for public fouryear colleges. So we have called for a new compact between the state and federal government to revitalize state funding in Public Colleges. The Public College quality compact calls for states implement four key elements. Create reliable Funding Sources for public Higher Education, make college affordable, particularly for low income students, improve performance, remove barriers. States that qualify and wish to participate in the compact will receive funding based on a formula that takes into consider the number of veterans and pell grant recipients that participate that graduate and do so without debt. Now, its my great pleasure to introduce carmel martin. Carmel is the executive Vice President for policy at the center for American Progress. Carmel will be moderating the panel today. Carmel manages the policy across all of the issue areas and is a key member of the executive team. Before coming here, we worked together at the u. S. Department of education where she was assistant secretary for planning, evaluation and policy development. In that position, she led the departments policy and Budget Development activities, served at Senior Adviser to the secretary. Prior to coming to the department of education, carmel served as the General Council and deputy staff direct he for the late senator edward kennedy, as chairman of the health, education and labor and pensions committee. She also previously worked at the center for American Progress as the associate director of domestic policy and in the senate as chief counsel and Senior Policy Adviser to former bingaham and special counsel to tom daschle. She holds a j. D. And a masters degree in public affairs. Carmel and the panel, please come up. Thank you. Im going to start by introducing our very prestigious panel. And dive right into discussion. On my right, we have ted mitchell, the under secretary of the u. S. Department of education. He has served since his confirmation earlier this year. In this role, he oversees policy programs and activities related to post secondary education, career and technical education, adult and federal student aid. Ted is charged with planning and policy to have the u. S. Have the most Competitive Work Force in the world by the year 2020. Next we have david baime who serves as senior Vice President for Government Relations and policy analysis at the American Association of Community Colleges. In this role he directs the efforts for the nations close to 1,200 Community Colleges and their students. Were happy to have david here today to speak about the associations Strategic Plan to boost as much as 50 the number of degrees and credentials awarded at institutions by 2020. Next we have sarah audelo. Who is the policy direct for progress. Sarahs work focuses on ensuring that the next generation of americans have access to an affordable and high quality education. She will discuss how these policy proposals have the potential to lift millennials toward great economic prosperity. Prior to joining generation progress, sarah was director of domestic policy at advocates for youth. And finally, we have ralph wilcox. The university of south florida is the ninth Largest University in the united states, serving more than 45,000 students. The university of south florida has made significant strides on student completion through its Student Success task force it has closed graduation gaps across demographic groups while raising the percentage ever low income students enrolled achieving access and degree completion. He formerly held leadership at the university of st. Petersburg the university of houston, the university of memphis and hofstra university. Maybe i will start with ted and ask to you talk to us about how the department of education is thinking about the issue of accessing completion but specifically how to create stronger partnerships with states so they continue to invest in public post secondary education. Thanks for having all of us. Its great to be here. The report is a fabulous start to a conversation that we need to have. As you noted, david, there has been systematic disinvestment by states throughout the Great Recession in Higher Education. I think its critically important as states economies and the National Economy improves for us to remind our partners at the state level that where theyare is not okay. That taking what was a fairly balanced three party compact between states and families and the federal government and unbalancing that in a way that as you have shown really does disadvantage the students that we are most concerned have access to and through College Needs to change and it needs to change dramatically. In the department, we have as you well know, carmel, we have for the last several years put in our Budget Proposal opportunities for the federal government and states to Work Together on many of the lines of contact were discussing here this morning. The state higher ed Performance Fund that we have proposed would seek to reward states that create Stable Funding platforms, that make sure that their commitment to low income students remains in place and that would also move states toward a more performance based budgeting overall. So we want to continue to have those conversations. We see great virtue in aligning federal resources with a states willingness to fund Higher Education and to make that funding centrally available to low income and middle income families who we need to get into college and across the finish line if were going to meet the president s goal and i think if were going to meet our moral imperative of providing opportunity and access to the middle class for families across the country. Ralph in the face of pretty deep cuts in terms of state investment, your institution has been able to make strides in terms of completion. Can you talk a little bit about how you are able to do that . Sc