[House Hearing, 117 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] FOR-PROFIT COLLEGE CONVERSIONS: EXAMINING WAYS TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PREVENT FRAUD ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 20, 2021 __________ Serial No. 117-7 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via: edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 44-331 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut Ranking Member GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, JOE WILSON, South Carolina Northern Mariana Islands GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida TIM WALBERG, Michigan SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin MARK TAKANO, California ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARK De SAULNIER, California JIM BANKS, Indiana DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey JAMES COMER, Kentucky PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington RUSS FULCHER, Idaho JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina LUCY Mc BATH, Georgia MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut BURGESS OWENS, Utah ANDY LEVIN, Michigan BOB GOOD, Virginia ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota LISA C. Mc CLAIN, Michigan HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico MARY E. MILLER, Illinois MONDAIRE JONES, New York VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Vice-Chair MICHELLE STEEL, California MARK POCAN, Wisconsin JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas Vacancy MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York KWEISI MFUME, Maryland Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director ------ C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on April 20, 2021................................... 1 Statement of Members: Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor........................................ 1 Prepared statement of.................................... 7 Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor.................................................. 8 Prepared statement of.................................... 9 Statement of Witnesses: Cao, Yan, JD, Fellow, The Century Foundation................. 12 Prepared statement of.................................... 14 Emrey-Arras, Melissa, Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office..... 50 Prepared statement of.................................... 52 Galle, Brian , JD, LL.M., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center...................................... 28 Prepared statement of.................................... 31 Gillen, Andrew, Ph.D.., Senior Policy Analyst, Texas Public Policy Foundation................................................. 44 Prepared statement of.................................... 46 Additional Submissions: Ranking Member Foxx: Report, ``Cheap for Whom?'', AEI Public Policy Research, October 2011........................................... 124 Charts, ``Executive Compensation at Public and Private Colleges''............................................. 134 Table, ``Spending by Function''.......................... 135 Graphics, ``The College Copmpletion Landscape''.......... 137 Chart, ``Federal Student Loan Three-Year Default Rate''.. 141 Article, ``Higher Education Has a Tax Problem and It's Hurting Local Communities'', Time, April 7, 2021....... 142 Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina: Letter submitted by NAICU dated April 16, 2021........... 149 Questions submitted for the record by: Chairman Scott........................................... 151 Ranking Member Foxx...................................... 158 Fitzgerald, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin................................. 155 Harshbarger, Hon. Diana, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee............................ 155 Responses to questions submitted for the record by: Ms. Cao.................................................. 152 Mr. Gillen............................................... 156 Ms. Emrey-Arras.......................................... 159 FOR-PROFIT COLLEGE CONVERSIONS: EXAMINING WAYS TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PREVENT FRAUD ---------- Tuesday, April 20, 2021 House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m., via Zoom, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (Chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Scott, Grijalva, Courtney, Sablan, Wilson, Bonamici, Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, Norcross, Wild, McBath, Hayes, Levin, Stevens, Jones, Manning, Mrvan, Bowman, Pocan, Castro, Sherrill, Yarmuth, Foxx, Walberg, Grothman, Stefanik, Allen, Fulcher, Keller, Murphy, Miller-Meeks, Good, Harshbarger, Spartz, Cawthorn, Steel, and Letlow. Staff present: Katie Berger, Professional Staff; Jessica Bowen, Professional Staff; Ilana Brunner, General Counsel; Christian Haines, General Counsel; Sheila Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Eli Hovland, Policy Associate; Ariel Jona, Policy Associate; Andre Lindsay, Policy Associate; Katie McClelland, Professional Staff; Max Moore, Staff Assistant; Mariah Mowbray, Clerk/Special Assistant to the Staff Director; Kayla Pennebecker, Staff Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Benjamin Sinoff, Director of Education Oversight; Theresa Thompson, Professional Staff; Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of Information Technology; Claire Viall, Professional Staff; Joshua Weisz, Minority Communications Director; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director; Kelsey Avino, Minority Professional Staff Member; Courtney Butcher, Minority Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Amy Raaf Jones, Minority Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Dean Johnson, Minority Legislative Assistant; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications Director; Carlton Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; Alex Ricci, Minority Professional Staff Member; Chance Russell, Minority Legislative Assistant; and Mandy Schaumburg, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy. Chairman Scott. OK we're ready to begin and I'll count down from five and then we'll start. Five, four, three, two, one. Good morning. The Committee on Education and Labor will now come to order. Our first order of business this morning is to conduct committee business to approve new committee assignments. At this time, I'd like to welcome the Gentlelady from Louisiana's 5th Congressional District to the committee, Ms. Letlow. And we'd just like to begin by extending our condolences to you and your family on the passing of your husband, but I'm pleased that you've now joined the committee and we look forward to working with you on the committee. Does the Ranking Member wish to be recognized? Mrs. Foxx. I do Mr. Chairman. Chairman Scott. Gentlelady is recognized. Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join all my colleagues in welcoming Representative Julia Letlow to the halls of Congress and to the Education and Labor Committee Republican team. It's been a difficult journey for Julia and her family as they continue to mourn the loss of Luke who tragically passed just days before he was to be sworn into office. But he's certainly looking down with pride today. As the first female Republican elected in Louisiana, Dr. Letlow joins a strong freshman class of Republican women and mothers. And I have no doubt she'll serve her constituents and her State with distinction. Dr. Letlow is a dedicated public servant who's worked in higher education for years, and we're overjoyed to welcome her with open arms to this committee. I'm eager to work alongside her in the days to come on behalf of America's students, workers, and job creators. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Letlow of Louisiana be appointed to the Subcommittees on Higher Education and Workforce Investment and Early Childhood Elementary and Secondary Education. Chairman Scott. Is there any objection? Without objection so ordered. And if there's no further business before the committee the business portion of today's proceeding is concluded. And now we'll turn to today's committee hearing. Once again, the, The Committee on Education and Labor will come to order. Welcome everyone. The committee is meeting today to hear testimony on For-Profit College Conversations: Examining Ways to Improve Accountability and Prevent Fraud. This is an entirely remote hearing. All microphones will be kept muted as a general rule to avoid unnecessary background noise. Members and witnesses will be responsible for unmuting themselves when they are recognized to speak, or when they seek recognition. I have also asked Members to identify themselves before they speak. Members should keep their cameras on while in the proceeding. The Members shall be considered present in the proceeding when they are on camera and are visible on camera. They shall be considered as not present when they are not visible on camera. The only exception to this is if they're experiencing technical difficulty and inform committee staff of such difficulty. If any member experiences technical difficulties during the hearing, you should stay connected on the platform, make sure you are muted, and use your phone immediately to contact the committee's IT direct whose number was provided in advance. Should the Chair experience any technical difficulty or need to step away from the floor, he'll designate another majority member to assume the gavel in my absence. This is an entirely remote hearing and as such the committee hearing room is technically closed. Members who choose to sit with their individual devices in the hearing room must wear headphones to avoid feedback, echoes, and distortion for more than one person on the software platform sitting in the same room. Members are also expected to adhere to social distancing and safe healthcare guidelines, including the use of wearing masks, hand sanitizers, wiping down their areas both before and after their presence in the hearing room. In order to ensure that the committee's five-minute rule is adhered to, staff will be keeping track of time using the committee's field timer. The field timer will appear on its own thumbnail picture and will be named 001_timer. This time provides no one-minute remaining warning. The field timer will signal an audio when time is up. Members and witnesses are asked to wrap up promptly when their time has expired. A roll call is not necessary to establish a quorum in official proceedings conducted remotely or with remote participation. The committee has made it a practice whenever there is an official proceeding with remote participation, for the Clerk to call the roll to help make clear who is present at the start of the proceeding. Members should state their name before announcing that they are present. This helps the Clerk and also helps us watching the platform and the livestream who may be experiencing a few seconds delay. At this time, I ask the Clerk to call the roll. The Clerk. Chairman Scott? Chairman Scott. Chairman Scott is present. The Clerk. Mr. Grijalva? Mr. Grijalva. Raul Grijalva present. The Clerk. Mr. Courtney? Mr. Courtney. Courtney present. The Clerk. Mr. Sablan? [No response.] The Clerk. Ms. Wilson? Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson is present. The Clerk. Ms. Bonamici? Ms. Bonamici. Suzanne Bonamici is present. The Clerk. Mr. Takano? Mr. Takano. Takano is present. The Clerk. Ms. Adams? Ms. Adams. Alma Adams is present. The Clerk. Mr. DeSaulnier? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Norcross? [No response.] The Clerk. Ms. Jayapal? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Morelle? [No response.] The Clerk. Ms. Wild? Ms. Wild. Wild is present. The Clerk. Mrs. McBath? [No response.] The Clerk. Mrs. Hayes? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Levin? [No response.] The Clerk. Ms. Omar? [No response.] The Clerk. Ms. Stevens? Ms. Stevens. Stevens present. The Clerk. Ms. Leger Fernandez? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones. Jones is present. The Clerk. Ms. Manning? Ms. Manning. Manning is present. The Clerk. Mr. Mrvan? Mr. Mrvan. Mrvan is present. The Clerk. Mr. Bowman? [No response.] The Clerk. Mrs. McBath, I believe you're unmuted. Mrs. McBath. McBath is present, thank you. The Clerk. Mr. Pocan? Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan is here. The Clerk. Mr. Castro? [No response.] The Clerk. Ms. Sherrill? Ms. Sherrill. Sherrill's present. The Clerk. Mr. Yarmuth? Mr. Yarmuth. Yarmuth present. The Clerk. Mr. Espaillat? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Mfume? [No response.] The Clerk. Ranking Member Foxx? Mrs. Foxx you're unmuted, or you're muted, I'm sorry. Mrs. Foxx. Foxx is present. The Clerk. Thank you. Mr. Wilson? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Thompson? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Walberg? Mr. Walberg. Walberg is present. The Clerk. Mr. Grothman? Mr. Grothman. I'm present. The Clerk. Ms. Stefanik? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Allen? Mr. Allen. Allen present. The Clerk. Mr. Banks? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Comer? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Fulcher? Mr. Fulcher. Fulcher's present. The Clerk. Mr. Keller? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Murphy? [No response.] The Clerk. Mrs. Miller-Meeks? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Owens? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Good? Mr. Good. Good present. The Clerk. Mrs. McClain? [No response.] The Clerk. Mrs. Harshbarger? Mrs. Harshbarger. Harshbarger is present. The Clerk. Mrs. Miller? [No response.] The Clerk. Mrs. Spartz? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Fitzgerald? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Cawthorn? Mr. Cawthorn. Cawthorn is present. The Clerk. Mrs. Steel? Mrs. Steel. Steel present. The Clerk. Ms. Letlow? Ms. Letlow. Letlow is present. The Clerk. Thank you. Chairman Scott that concludes the roll call. Chairman Scott. Thank you, did anyone appear after the roll call that wants to be recorded as present? Mrs. Hayes. Mrs. Hayes Mr. Chair, I'm present. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c) opening statements are limited to the Chair and Ranking Member. This allows us to hear from our witnesses sooner and provides all Members with adequate time to ask questions. I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening statement. Today we're gathered to discuss the need for strong oversight to protect students and taxpayers from those for- profit colleges that transition to non-profit institutions to trick students and regulators. Over the last 4 years this committee has had extensive discussions over the role of for- profit colleges and our higher education system. This work continues to be guided by the clear evidence that some unscrupulous for-profit colleges frequently charge their students too much in tuition on delivering too little in education and opportunity. After a series of high-profile cases in which for-profit colleges cheated students and taxpayers out of billions of dollars, regulators and potential students have become more aware of the deceptive practices employed by bad actors in the for-profit sector. But rather than changing their behavior to comply with the accountability standards and repair the industry's reputation, some schools are opting to simply evade the for-profit accountability standards and are re-branding themselves as non- profits. Three months ago, the Government Accountability Office, or the GAO, released a report identifying 59 for-profit colleges that converted to non-profit status over the past decade. A report found several examples of for-profit schools that sought to become non-profit in name only. In roughly a third of the conversions identified by the GAO, the for-profit colleges owners or officials, held leadership roles in the non-profit buyer. As a result of poor oversight by both the Department of Education and the Internal Revenue Service, these conversions sometimes took place without the necessary oversight to prevent self-dealing. In two instances the IRS approved the sale among for-profit insiders without essential information such as the planned purchase price, or the appraisal of the college's value. This has left the IRS staff with no way of knowing whether the price was improperly inflated. Emergence of covert for-profits has real consequences for students and taxpayers. For example, an independent analysis found that in 2011 Florida-based Keiser University attained non-profit status after the owner sold it to its own non-profit entity, Everglades College, in what appeared to be a significantly inflated price. To finance the sale the owner lent more than 300 million dollars to Everglades College in addition to claiming a massive tax-deductible donation. The resulting conversion allowed the owner to profit from the sale of his business and keep millions of dollars in tax breaks. During the same period, the university settled multiple investigations with law enforcement agencies for violating State and Federal consumer protection laws. We cannot allow these kinds of things to continue. As GAO found both the Department of Education and the IRS must do more to prevent fraud by properly vetting for profit to non-profit conversions. They must ensure that after the conversion the for-profit institutions uphold their obligations to put students first and not profits. The College Affordability Act, which the committee considered last year offers a clear foundation for legislative solutions to achieve these goals. A comprehensive bill included several provisions that established requirements an institution must meet to convert to non-profit status. These requirements include demonstrating that the asset it acquires from the former owners are not acquired at a value greater than its actual worth; and demonstrating that no member of its governing board receives any substantial economic benefit. Today we are grateful to be joined by expert witnesses who will help us discuss these solutions and other proposals that will ensure that for-profit college executives cannot take advantage of converting to non-profit institutions. This is a critical moment to take action as students recover from the pandemic and start or continue their pursuit of post-secondary education. We must ensure that students and taxpayers are protected from deceptive schemes that undermine the integrity of our higher education system. At this point, I am pleased to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for the purpose of making her opening statement. Dr. Foxx. [The statement of Chairman Scott follows:] Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor Today, we are gathered to discuss the need for stronger oversight to protect students and taxpayers from those for-profit colleges that transition to non-profit institutions to trick students and regulators. Over the last four years, this Committee has had extensive discussions over the role of for-profit colleges in our higher education system. This work continues to be guided by the clear evidence that some unscrupulous for-profit colleges frequently charge their students too much in tuition while delivering too little in education and opportunity. After a series of high-profile cases in which for-profit colleges cheated students and taxpayers out of billions of dollars, regulators and potential students have become more aware of the deceptive practices employed by bad actors in the for-profit sector. But rather than changing their behavior to comply with accountability standards and repair the industry's reputation, some schools are opting to simply evade for-profit accountability standards by rebranding themselves as non-profits. Three months ago, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, released a report identifying 59 for-profit colleges that converted to non-profit status over the past decade. The report found several examples of for-profit schools that sought to become non-profit in name only. In roughly a third of conversions identified by GAO, the for-profit colleges? owners or officials held leadership roles in the non-profit buyer. As a result of poor oversight by both the Department of Education and the Internal Revenue Service, these conversions sometimes took place without the necessary oversight to prevent self-dealing. In two instances, the IRS approved a sale among for-profit insiders without essential information, such as the planned purchase price or appraisal of the college's value. This left IRS staff with no way of knowing whether the price was improperly inflated. The emergence of `covert for-profits' has real consequences for students and taxpayers. For example, an independent analysis found that, in 2011, Florida- based Keiser University attained non-profit status after the owner sold it to his own non-profit entity, Everglades College, at what appeared to be a significantly inflated price. To finance this sale, the owner lent more than $300 million dollars to Everglades College in addition to claiming a massive tax-deductible donation. The resulting conversion allowed the owner to profit from the sale of his business and keep millions of dollars in tax breaks. During this same period, the university settled multiple investigations with law enforcement agencies for violating State and Federal consumer protection laws. We cannot allow these kinds of things to continue. As GAO found, both the Department of Education and IRS must do far more to prevent fraud by properly vetting for-profit to non-profit conversions. And they must ensure that, after the conversion, for-profit institutions uphold their obligations to put students first-- profits. The College Affordability Act, which the Committee considered last year, offers a clear foundation for legislative solutions to achieve these goals. The comprehensive bill included several provisions that established requirements an institution must meet to convert to nonprofit status. These requirements include demonstrating that the assets it acquires from former owners are not acquired at a value greater than its actual worth; and demonstrating that no member of its governing board receives any substantial economic benefit. Today, we are grateful to be joined by expert witnesses who will help us discuss these solutions and other proposals that will ensure that for-profit college executives cannot take advantage of converting to non-profit institutions. This is a critical moment to take action as students recover from the pandemic and start or continue their pursuit of post-secondary education. We must ensure students and taxpayers are protected from deceptive schemes that undermine the integrity of our higher education system. At this point, I am pleased to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for the purpose of making her opening statement. ______ Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our education system is in crisis. High school graduation rates are declining, the Nation's skill gap is growing, COVID-19 pandemic policies have led to years-worth of learning loss, Federal student debt tops 1.5 trillion dollars, college costs continue to skyrocket, campus free speech is under attack and China is infiltrating U.S. Campuses. All these issues are deserving of Congress's time and attention. So, you could imagine my surprise when I learned we were ignoring these important pressing topics to examine colleges transitioning from for-profit to non-profit status, which impacts roughly 0.1 percent of for-profit colleges per year, or approximately three schools a year. Three schools a year. In the past decade, only 35 such colleges transitioned to non-profit status. Whoopie. So, the millions of students wondering why Congress hasn't acted on campus free speech zones, Chinese Communist party censorship, and exorbitantly high tuition rates, I say look no further than this hearing today, and see where the democrat's priorities are. Democrats want to discuss the possibility of a narrow type of fraud in higher education. Specifically, the potential for some stakeholders to receive improper benefits when non-profit organization acquire for-profit colleges. Committee Republicans are against all fraud and abuse, no matter the tax status of the institution. That bears repeating. Committee Republicans are against all fraud and abuse no matter the tax status of the institution. Sadly, Democrats are more interested in chasing phantoms than they are working with republicans on issues that are actually important to students. Republicans will continue our work to improve the odds that students succeed after attending post-secondary education. But let's return to why democrats called this hearing. I'd like to make several important points about the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report Democrats will highlight, which investigated when for-profit colleges became non-profit entities. First, transitioning from for-profit to non-profit is completely legal. Second, if any of my Democrat colleagues read past the report's title, they would know two of the three GAO recommendations are outside the committee's jurisdiction. Additionally, the GAO report flagged that one-third of the 35 proprietary institutions that became non-profits had insider involvement. While that term may sound nefarious, it's a far cry from real harm inflicted upon students which is where we should be focusing our efforts and attention. So, the obverse of one- third of the institutions having insider involvement means two- thirds did not. Today's hearing is just another example of Democrats trying to manufacture headlines to advance their partisan objectives, even if those policies limit student choice and freedom. As I repeatedly said oversight is a critical function of Congress, and we must protect use of taxpayer funds, a responsibility I take very seriously. But this hearing fails to address substantively the ways higher education fails students. President Obama presided over several of these transitions, but Democrats remained suspiciously quiet. Now we're coming off 4 years of President Trump whose Department of Education strengthened the bureaucratic review of this non-profit conversion process. We're fabricating a crisis to rally support for a socialist overhaul of our education system. It wasn't a pressing problem 8 years ago, and with the GAO determining there's been no fraud, it is a pressing problem now. The Federal Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, yet Democrats are actively working to eliminate proprietary institutions. For a party that loves to talk about diversity in higher education, it is ironic they are attacking institutions that educate hundreds of thousands of minority students, veterans, older Americans, and single parents. The Higher Education Act is in desperate need of reform, so all colleges--not just those the democrats demonize, are held accountable and better serve students. When it comes to post-secondary education the question we should be asking is whether students are getting the education they need to be successful. Unfortunately, even before the pandemic disrupted schools, jobs, and families, polling suggested that 53 percent of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed. At the same time millions of jobs sit unfilled due to the skills gap, demanding more students obtain a skills-based education, which many proprietary institutions offer. Those are the issues facing students in higher education, not whether the president of a for-profit university kept his job while the university's tax status changed. While the purpose of today's hearing is questionable, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and engaging in positive conversation. [The statement of Ranking Member Foxx follows:] Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor Our education system is in crisis. High school graduation rates are declining, the Nation's skills gap is growing, COVID-19 pandemic polices have led to years' worth of learning loss, Federal student debt tops 1.5 trillion dollars, college costs continue to skyrocket, campus free speech is under attack, and China is infiltrating U.S. campuses. All these issues are deserving of Congress' time and attention, so you can imagine my surprise when I learned we were ignoring these important, pressing topics to examine colleges transitioning from for- profit to non-profit status, which impacts roughly zero-point one percent of for-profit colleges per year, or approximately three schools a year. In the past decade only 35 such colleges transitioned to non- profit status. So, to the millions of students wondering why Congress hasn't acted on campus free speech zones, Chinese Communist party censorship, and exorbitantly high tuition rates--I say look no further than this hearing today. Democrats want to discuss the possibility of a narrow type of fraud in higher education, specifically the potential for some stakeholders to receive improper benefits when non-profit organizations acquire for- profit colleges. Committee Republicans are against all fraud and abuse no matter the tax status of the institution. Sadly, Democrats are more interested in chasing phantoms than they are working with Republicans on issues that are actually important to students. Republicans will continue our work to improve the odds that students succeed after attending postsecondary education. But let's return to why Democrats called this hearing. I'd like to make several important points about the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report Democrats will highlight, which investigated when for-profit colleges became non-profit entities. First, transitioning from for-profit to non-profit is completely legal. Second, if any of my Democrat colleagues read past the report's title, they would know two of the three GAO recommendations are outside this Committee's jurisdiction. Additionally, the GAO report flagged that one-third of the 35 proprietary institutions that became non-profits had insider involvement. While that term may sound nefarious, it is a far cry from real harm inflicted upon students, which is where we should be focusing our efforts and attention. Today's hearing is just another example of Democrats trying to manufacture headlines to advance their partisan objectives, even if those policies limit student choice and freedom. As I have repeatedly said, oversight is a critical function of Congress, and we must protect the use of taxpayer funds--a responsibility I take very seriously. But this hearing fails to address substantively the ways higher education has failed students. President Obama presided over several of these transitions, but Democrats remained suspiciously quiet. Now that we are coming off four years of President Trump, whose Department of Education strengthened the bureaucratic review of this non-profit conversion process, we are fabricating a crisis to rally support for a socialist overhaul of our education system. It wasn't a pressing problem eight years ago and with the GAO determining there's been no fraud, it isn't a pressing problem now. The Federal Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Yet Democrats are actively working to eliminate proprietary institutions. For a party that loves to talk about diversity in higher education, it is ironic they are attacking institutions that educate hundreds of thousands of minority students, veterans, older Americans, and single parents. The Higher Education Act is in desperate need of reform, so all colleges ? not just those Democrats demonize ? are held accountable and better serve students. When it comes to postsecondary education, the question we should be asking is whether students are getting the education they need to be successful. Unfortunately, even before the pandemic disrupted schools, jobs, and families, polling suggested 53 percent of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed. At the same time, millions of jobs sit unfilled due to the skills-gap, demanding more students obtain a skills-based education which many proprietary institutions offer. Those are the issues facing students and higher education, not whether the president of a for-profit university kept his job when the university's tax status changed. While the purpose of today's hearing is questionable, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and engaging in productive conversation. I yield back. ______ And Mr. Chairman before I yield back, I'd like to yield to Dr. Letlow for a very brief opening statement. Chairman Scott. The Gentlelady from Louisiana is recognized. Ms. Letlow. Good morning, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Foxx, Members of the committee and witnesses. I'm honored to join this distinguished committee, and to have the opportunity to represent the teachers, professors, principals, administrators, and students of the 5th District of Louisiana. As a former higher education administrator, this committee holds a special place in my heart. I am pleased to be able to be on a committee that will help shape education and workforce policies for years to come. I firmly believe education is the key to success. We must do all we can to ensure our students have the opportunity to learn, grow, and find career opportunities that best suit their talents. We must pave the way for our children to be able to choose any route of education they wish to pursue, whether trade schools, community colleges, or universities. Utilizing public- private partnerships for workforce education is paramount. Additionally, there are a unique set of challenges that our rural schools face, including access to broadband and teacher recruitment and retention. I look forward to working together to tackle these pressing issues. I'm excited to begin working with you all to better educational programs, and workforce opportunities for my constituents and individuals across the country. Thank you and I yield back my time. Ms. Foxx. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Scott. No problem. Thank you. Without objection all other Members who wish to insert a written statement into the record may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk electronically, in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m. on May 4, 2021. I will now introduce the witnesses. Yan Cao is a Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation where she works on higher education policy with a focus on expanding opportunity, reducing inequality, and ensuring fair outcomes for students. She previously worked as a Skadden Fellow at the Project on Predatory Student Lending at the Legal Services Center at Harvard Law School, representing students defrauded by for- profit colleges, and as an attorney at South Brooklyn Legal Services, representing low-income families with predatory student loan debt. She received her bachelor's degree from Stanford, and a J.D. from New York University. Brian Galle is a Professor of Education at Georgetown University. His research and teaching interests include taxation, non-profit organizations, behavioral law and economics, federalism, and public finance economics. He practiced for 3 years as an attorney in the criminal appeals and tax enforcement policy section of the tax division at the U.S. Department of Justice. He's a graduate of Harvard College, received a J.D. from Columbia and an LL.M. from Georgetown. Andrew Gillen is the Senior Policy Analyst for the Texas Public Policy Foundation and an adjunct professor in economics at John Hopkins University. He's spent over a decade of non- profit and philanthropic organizations researching ways to improve post-secondary education. Previous places of employment include the Charles Koch Foundation, the American Institutes for Research, American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. He also served on the U.S. Department of Education's Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. He has a Ph.D. in economics from Florida State and a BA in business from Ohio University. Melissa Emrey-Arras is the Director of GAO's Education Workforce and Income Security Issues team. She oversees the GAO's higher education reports, has led studies examining issues ranging from for-profit college conversions to student loans. Before joining GAO in 2001 she worked in the private sector consulting company and conducted program evaluations for State and local governments. She has received a master's degree of public policy from Harvard's Kennedy School where she was awarded the Manuel C. Carballo prize for graduate research, and she also has a bachelor's degree from Swarthmore College. I appreciate all of the witnesses participating today and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we've read your written statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d) and the committee practice, each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a five- minute summary of your written statement. Before you begin your testimony, please remember to unmute your microphone. During your testimony staff will be keeping track of time and the timer will sound when time is up. Please be attentive to the time and wrap up when your time is over and then re-mute your microphone. If you experience technical difficulties during your testimony, or later in the hearing, you should stay connected, make sure that you're muted, and use your telephone to immediately call the committee's IT director whose number was provided to you in advance. We will let the witnesses make their presentations before we move to member's questions. When answering a question please remember to unmute your microphone. Witnesses are aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the committee, and therefore we will proceed now with their testimony. We will first recognize Ms. Cao. Ms. Cao? STATEMENT OF YAN CAO, JD, FELLOW, THE CENTURY FOUNDATION Ms. Cao. Thank you, Chairman Scott, for the opportunity to testify today, and to Mr. Vassar for assistance with slides today. Before we dive into the complex conversations the GAO has described in its report, I want to start with the basics. How do you close the skills gap, expand opportunity, and provide a fighting chance to students who have suffered from chronic underinvestment in their prior education? Ask any high school principal and she'll tell you, ``Invest resources in students.'' With the Higher Education Act, Congress has made an enduring investment in student's higher education, but not all of those resources reach the students who need them the most. In the for-profit sector, taxpayer dollars earmarked for higher education can be extracted by insiders for personal gain. To understand why this matters, focus on the gap between the tuition dollars that students pay in, and the educational investments that students get out of institutions. Now at traditional non-profit schools, 100 percent of that difference must be reinvested toward education. At for-profit schools, the gap between high tuition and low educational spending can be extracted by insiders. This distinction between revenue extracting schools, and revenue reinvesting schools makes a huge impact on incentives, behaviors, and student outcomes. There are two paths for maximizing revenue--high tuition, and high-pressure recruitment. High tuition translates to more debt. At Keiser University a conversion described in the GAO report, every program has a median debt of $30,000.00 or higher. This is true for less than 5 percent of public college programs. High pressure recruitments leads to fraudulent tactics. Together, revenue extracting schools account for 99.7 percent of borrower defense claims that that have been identified by an institution. Once revenue extracting schools max out revenue, the other side of the equation is minimizing investment in students. For every one dollar of student tuition, for-profits average just 29 cents of student instruction. Some for-profit conversions are even worse. Grand Canyon University reports to spending 18 cents on instruction for every student tuition dollar. The same high-price, low-value formula that produces big profits for owners leads to drop-outs, loan defaults, and worthless degrees for students. In some cases, for-profit conversions produce outcomes that are even worse for students than those at traditional for- profit schools. Congress and the Department of Education have taken steps to protect students from the heightened risks associated with revenue extracting institutions. For-profit colleges sometimes describe these sector- specific regulations as an unfair additional burden, but this is disingenuous. Let's take an example. When for profit owners have withdrawn investments to the point of near collapse, regulations then limit further withdrawals of capital. This rule singles out for-profits for a simple reason, non- profit owners can never withdraw capital. As the example illustrates, for-profit regulations are not added burden on revenue extracting institutions. Instead, they are guardrails for institutions that lack the non-profit sector's absolutely barrier against enrichment. Private institutions have two choices--either give up the revenue extraction power and reinvest 100 percent of resources in student education, or retain the revenue extraction power, but abide by student protection guardrails. For-profit conversations want to have their cake and eat it too. They want revenue extraction power without the guardrails. This combination presents the greatest risk to students and taxpayers. Students intuitively believe that non-profits will be safer than for-profit schools, but the revenue extracting for-profit conversions are in fact even more dangerous than for-profit schools that are subject to appropriate regulations like 90/10 or the Gainful Employment Rule. For-profit conversions are not just wolves in sheep's clothing, they are wolves that have sharpened their teeth and honed their claws while the shepherd is off minding other wolves. The good news is that the Department of Education already has the tools that it needs. To protect students the department must engage in its own review to root out schools with hidden revenue extraction plans. As we continue this discussion, I ask that you keep three students in mind. First, a student at school suddenly collapses because owners have withdrawn too much equity for the school to remain viable. Second, a student who owes more loan debt that she can ever repay because her school took her tuition, but grossly underinvested in her education. Third, a veteran who has learned not to trust the predatory school that recruits on base but does not know that the global campus with the public name is operated by the same company. These are the victims of for-profit conversions, and I urge you to ensure that they receive the full benefit of the investment and protections secured by the Higher Education Act. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Yan Cao follows:] Prepared Statement of Yan Cao [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Scott. Thank you. Now we'll hear from Mr. Galle. STATEMENT OF BRIAN GALLE, JD, LL.M., PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER Mr. Galle. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Members of the committee. My name is Brian Galle. I'm a Professor of Law at Georgetown. I'm here to discuss the efforts of a number of colleges which are operated for-profit, to get recognition from the education department as non-profit. I'm going to call these efforts conversion transactions. I'll tell you why I think these conversions are so concerning for students and taxpayers. The IRS and ED both have jurisdiction over schools that claim to be non-profits, so I'll explain why I think IRS hasn't been able to address my concerns, and I'll tell you what I think ED should do. First a little background. As you know, the Higher Education Act and ED's regulations treats schools differently if the school is operated for profit. The 90/10 Rule and gainful employment rules both regulate for-profits more carefully than other schools. So, what's the difference between a for-profit and non- profit school? The answer is incentives. For-profits want to make money for their owners, non-profits can't. Legally being a non-profit means that an organization can't share its profits with anyone. A for-profit school is like a car salesman who works on commission. When you walk in, they want to sell you all the expensive options you don't really need, like the fake wood trim. There's evidence this difference in incentive matters. Researchers find that for-profit colleges are actually a worse deal than dropping out of school for some students. On average students at for-profits earn 11 percent less than similar students at non-profits or public schools, and they have more debt besides. Insured genuine non-profit status offers key protections for students. A traditional non-profit behaves differently than a school that's incentive to maximize revenue. Now what's troubling about conversion transactions? You have a school saying it's a non-profit, but it isn't acting like one. We'd all agree a cancer charity that spends 80 percent of its revenues on fund-raising is not really a charity at all. Some of these converted for-profit colleges are like that. Their non-profit status is a disguise. Here's your typical transaction. Mr. Investor sells the school that Charity Z which he also founded, in exchange for an 800-million-dollar IOU. Every year Charity Z has to pay him 50 million dollars or so in interest. It's important to realize what that massive payment back to Mr. Investor means for the new non-profit school. Before the conversion School A has 50 million in net revenues, all of which it was paying to Mr. Investor. After the conversion, Charity Z still needs 50 million dollars in net revenue just to pay to Mr. Investor. In short, Charity Z is a prisoner of its debts. To be able to pay it has to be continuing to operate the school exactly the way it was run before, to maximize net revenue. It's like if you wanted to retire but you have a big mortgage, so you're stuck working until you can pay it off. The new non-profit's rule is in the exact same position. It's calling itself a non-profit, but it still has to act like a for-profit, maximizing its income, not student outcomes. By the way I didn't make up that transaction, it's the actual deal that Grand Canyon University made. Other schools have also added huge debts to their for- profit partners too, 134 million, 321 million, 636 million. Look at, so what should education do about this? Title IV allows ED to decide when a school is a non-profit for purposes of the statute. As you probably know, that's also a determination IRS makes, based on similar language for purposes of figuring out whether an organization can be tax exempt. As the GAO report tells us, the IRS hasn't closely examined a lot of these conversions, some of them it hasn't even known about. IRS hasn't actually flunked any of these organizations, but that doesn't mean everything is fine. Instead, it should signal that education needs to conduct its own independent review. Right now, education and IRS have what I call a centerfield problem. I was a youth baseball coach. Every time there's a flyball to centerfield, two of my kids would both yell, ``I got it,'' and then the ball would fall right to the ground. Education should be fielding the problem of for-profit conversions. IRS doesn't have the resources. Even if that agency got another billion dollars a year, there's still one and a half million charities for them to monitor every year. IRS also doesn't have student protection as its primary mission. The law it enforces isn't aimed at telling which charities are really non-profit and which aren't. To be clear in my view a lot of the conversion transactions I examined fail ed basic and important tax law requirements. But figuring out which schools prioritize money over student outcomes is not IRS's job. So that brings me to my conclusion. Education is the right agency to monitor for-profit conversions. Title IV is intended to impose tougher standards on schools that have a financial incentive to favor revenues over student outcomes. Education can and should implement Title IV to make sure that that is true no matter whether some organizations might slip past IRS scrutiny. Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. I hope my comments are helpful to the committee. [The prepared statement of Mr. Brian Galle follows:] Prepared Statement of Brian Galle [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Scott. Thank you. Mr. Gillen? STATEMENT OF ANDREW GILLEN, Ph.D., SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION Mr. Gillen. Thank you. And thank you to all the Members of the committee for inviting us to talk on this important topic. I first want to comment the Government Accountability Office for putting together a very useful and insightful report. I think it's done a great job on a sound basis for their discussion. Having said that I do want to raise a couple issues that I think can benefit from further conversation and investigation. So, the first concerns the GAO's recommendation that the IRS add more questions about recent for-profit college conversions to non-profit to their annual filings. This may be a good idea, it may not, but I think it really needs to be conducted and subjected to a cost benefit test. And I'm skeptical that it would pass such a cost benefit test, because the benefits are very small. The numbers of conversions per year are very, very small. The number of conversions that involve insiders are even smaller, so we're talking about one or two colleges per year where this would even be relevant. And moreover, this information is already collected by the Department of Education, so this would be just a duplicative kind of data collection by the IRS. But the cost wouldn't necessarily be as negligible, and that's because the IRS would be required to collect this information from all sorts of universities, and maybe other charities as well. And see you could potentially be asking 300,000 others non- profits about a question that only applies to one, maybe two of them. And so, this committee has a lot of experience with the FAFSA form, how over the years it accumulated into you know just a massive amount of questions. And it took us a decade to figure out how to simplify it. And so, I'd like us to keep that in mind when we are encouraging the IRS to add other requirements that are only relevant to a very, very small fraction of schools. A second point that I'd like to bring up is it would be very useful for us to distinguish between the different types of insider benefit and proper insider benefit. The lumping them all together is not necessarily appropriate because some of them can be assessed at the time of transaction, and some of them need to be assessed at an ongoing basis and making that distinction would be very valuable. Another issue I'd like to flag is the issue of regulatory arbitrage, and so there's a number of different policies and regulations that apply to for-profits, or that don't apply to non-profits that can raise kind of a wedge between the value of a school as a for-profit and the value of the school as a non- profit. And so, we just need to be careful when we're kind of assessing whether a transaction is fair. The value can actually--the value of the school can actually change quite a bit, whether it's for-profit or non-profit. Some states are kind of increasing regulations of for-profits. There are a set of regulations at the Federal level that only apply to for-profits as well. And so, this regulatory arbitrage could kind of skew some of the assessments if we aren't careful. And then, the last point I want to make is really that the accountability system that we have for higher education, if we were able to improve that accountability system, that would really do a lot to take much of the improper benefit problem that we could see with some of these entire conversions off the table. So, with a better--and there's really two reasons for this. So, the first is that if we have a better accountability system, it's easier to value an account. Right now, it's very difficult to value a college, and so it's relatively easier for a nefarious insider to arrange for an inflated estimate. That would be much harder if the accountability system we had made it much more objective way to value the account. The second way that a better accountability system would improve higher education, and kind of limit any insider involvement problems is that it would really allow for us to escape what's going forward in Bowen's laws. And we don't have time to go all the way into those laws, but one of the implications of Bowen's laws is that essentially higher education is going to see increase in expenditure over time. And if you're in that environment, insiders at non- profits even, can find it very easy to arrange for improper benefit. And so, the for-profit versus non-profit conversion, that's not even the real issue. The real issue is non-profits themselves can find a very easy way to arrange for an improper benefit when we are stuck in this Bowen's Law world where we've got increasing spending over time. Thank you for allowing me to testify and I'll pass on the time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Andrew Gillen follows:] Prepared Statement of Andrew Gillen [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Scott. Thank you. Ms. Emrey-Arras. STATEMENT OF MELISSA EMREY-ARRAS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Ms. Emrey-Arras. Good morning, Chairman Scott, Republican Leader Foxx, and Members of the committee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO's report on for-profit college conversions. I will focus my remarks on three issues. One, what is known about insider involvement in college conversions. Two, IRS's oversight of college conversions. And three, the Department of Education's oversight of college conversions. Beginning with a look at insider involvement, we found that about a third of the 59 for-profit college conversions we identified involved insiders. Collectively, colleges with insider conversions received nearly 1.8 billion in Federal student aid funds in the 2018-19 award year. Insiders may be the for-profit colleges former owners, or their family Members, executives, or board Members who continue to play a leadership role in the new non-profit college. While leadership continuity can benefit a college, insider involvement poses a risk that insiders may improperly benefit financially. For example, insiders could influence the non- profit to pay more for the for-profit college than it is worth, or insiders could steer college contracts toward businesses the insiders' control through an inflated price. Doing so would be prohibited under the Internal Revenue Code and the Higher Education Act, which do not allow a non- profit's earnings to improperly benefit private individuals. In addition, in examining the financial health of colleges converting, we found that colleges with insider conversions generally had stronger financial performance before their conversions. For example, all of the colleges with insider conversions had a passing education financial responsibility score the year before their sale, however, almost all of them had a failing financial score the year of their sale. Turning now to how the IRS oversees college conversions we found that IRS guidance directs staff to closely scrutinize whether insider transactions exceed fair market value and improperly benefit insiders. If an application contains insufficient information to make that assessment, guidance says the staff may need to request additional information. However, we found that for two of the planned or final conversions involving insiders, IRS approved the application without certain information. For example, IRS approved college conversions without information on the college's planned purchase price, or the appraisal report estimating the college's value. Without such information IRS staff could not assess whether the price was inflated to improperly benefit insiders which would be grounds to deny the application. Accordingly, we recommended the IRS assess and improve its application review process. Now turning to education. We found that education had strengthened its reviews of for-profit college conversion applications. As of August 2020, education had approved 35 of the 59 colleges for non-profit status and denied two. The remaining applications were under review or no longer required action because the colleges had closed. However, in terms of monitoring colleges after approving them as non-profits, we found that education does not monitor the newly converted colleges to assess ongoing risk of improper benefit. In two of the three cases we reviewed in-depth, we found college financial statements disclosed transactions with insiders that could indicate the risk of improper benefit. Consequently, we recommended that education develop procedures to review financial statements to monitor newly converted colleges. In conclusion, for-profit college conversions involving insiders can pose risks to students and taxpayers. If a non-profit college's revenues are diverted to improperly benefit insiders, funds available to support the college's educational mission can be reduce, potentially harming the college and its students, and violating Federal requirements. We believe that GAO's recommendations will help IRS and education address these risks. This completes my statement, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Ms. Melissa Emrey-Arras follows:] Prepared Statement of Melissa Emrey-Arras [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Scott. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll have questions from Members. Under Committee Rule 9(a), questions will be by the five- minute rule. I'll be recognizing committee Members in seniority order. Again, to ensure the five-minute rule is adhered to, staff will be keeping time in the timer 001--timer. I will now recognize Mr. Grijalva first for questions. Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and thank the witnesses and thank you for the hearing. Ms. Cao, the Century Foundation and specific to an issue here in Arizona, but I think indicative and representative of issues across this country. The Foundation has recently written about the University of Arizona's plans to purchase Ashford University following that college, Ashford's failed non-profit conversion attempt. Can you walk us through your key concerns about that deal? Ms. Cao. Sure. I think this is a great example and thanks for the opportunity to discuss Ashford's conversion into a non- profit entity called University of Arizona global campus. So, this is a particular dangerous form of a conversion where you have a for profit entity that has been under investigation and is currently approaching a trial from the California Attorney General's Office for misleading and predatory tactics used to recruit students. Ashford University is also a school that spends very little of student's tuition dollars that come from Federal loans, student loan debt and military benefits on its student's instruction. It's something about 18 cents per dollar received in student tuition dollars. This is a conversion that would help Ashford's shareholders, but not necessarily the students who would be brought into the new University of Arizona global campus. And part of the reason here is that the conversion keeps in place Zovio's shareholder's ability to extract profits from student's tuition dollars. In particular, we have conducted an analysis that shows over 70 percent of revenues coming in from student's tuition dollars will be going to Zovio shareholders after the conversion. So, every dollar of debt that a student takes on, 70 cents going to Zovio shareholders. And that would occur through a contract that is a long-term service contract that keeps in place the aspect of Zovio's practices that is the most predatory, and that is the way that it advertises, markets, recruits, and takes out student loans for students. And I think that is a huge concern. I also want to look at the other side of the equation in this conversion which is the University of Arizona itself. Mr. Grijalva. Yes, I was going to ask about that. Ms. Cao. Yes, so going from a situation where there is one revenue extracting entity, Zovio, to a situation where you now have two revenue extracting entities--Zovio on the one hand and University of Arizona on the other hand which yes, needs more resources as a public university. But I argue the way for the University of Arizona to balance its budget is not off the backs of low-income students. With these for-profit conversions that involve public institutions, I fear that we are veering toward a system of separate and unequal units or affiliates within public institutions. And not only is the University of Arizona and the University of Arizona global campus separate and unequal, but you have a situation where the low-income, minority, and non- family supported students at the University of Global Canvas are in fact subsidizing their much more privileged peers, who are already receiving a greater benefit from the education at University of Arizona, which because it is subject to genuine non-profit oversight, it's returning far greater value to students already. Mr. Grijalva. Yes, which begs the question about the light touch review that the Department of Education gives on these conversion partnerships between a public entity non-profit, Grand College at the University of Arizona, and a former for- profit college, Ashford. Any safeguards that you see and that light touch review process so that we don't end up with both the student burden that you said very rightfully, issues of equity and higher education, and the taxpayer projects that are required for a tax supported institution like the University of Arizona. Ms. Cao. Yes, so the GAO mentioned the Department of Education has started to improve its review of this conversion, and arguably it needs to continue the purpose. You know a tax- exempt status according to IRS is just one part of a three- pronged review the Department of Education will probably need to do. And at the heart of that review is checking for the revenue extraction power that prior owners and other entities might retain. Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Next is the Ranking Member of the Full committee Dr. Foxx. Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank our witnesses. Ms. Emrey-Arras. To make sure it is clear could you please answer the following questions regarding the GAO report. Did your report find that Department of Education engaged in any illegal activity? Ms. Emrey-Arras. No. Ms. Foxx. Did your report make any determination or judgments about a particular school's conversion? Ms. Emrey-Arras. We did not do an audit of any particular school. Ms. Foxx. What was the Department of Education feedback to GAO regarding the project, and how did you address those comments in the report? Ms. Emrey-Arras. The Department of Education agreed with our recommendation to it and said they will be implementing a recommendation. Ms. Foxx. Is there anything illegal, generally speaking, about any for-profit company converting to a non-profit organization? Is there anything again, general speaking, about a for-profit college transitioning into a non-profit entity? Ms. Emrey-Arras. No. For-profits are allowed legally to convert into non-profits. Ms. Foxx. Right. Both in the education field and elsewhere? Ms. Emrey-Arras. Correct. Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Doctor Gillen one of the greatest benefits that college education provides students is better job prospects. Most students go to college to get a job. Unfortunately, many institutions are inadequately preparing students for post-college success. Is this problem concentrated in any one sector, or is this an issue that is found in all sectors of post-secondary education? Mr. Gillen. So, our research has shown that this is a problem across higher education. Most of higher education of course performs very well, but there are many, many programs out there where student outcomes are not very good. And so, your question is you know is this concentrated among a particular sector and it's not. So, we have a report coming out soon that looks at the debt to earnings ratio at all programs in the country. And there's about 4,500 of these where students graduate with more debt that they have expected earnings. Ms. Foxx. And those are in public and not for profit schools? Mr. Gillen. Yes, so that's across the whole country, so about 4,500. And only between 4 and 500 of those are for- profits. So about 1 in 10 of problematic programs are located at for-profits, the other 90 percent are located at either public or private non-profits. Ms. Foxx. Right. So, we're looking at 10 percent today when we ought to be looking at the 90 percent, really skewed. What other student outcomes should Congress consider attaching accountability metrics to, and should these accountability metrics evaluate entire institutions, or calculate outcomes on a program-by-program basis? Now I know you've already mentioned some, but would you respond to those? Mr. Gillen. Yes absolutely. So, I think higher education can really benefit from explaining accountability metrics in two particular areas. So, the first is learning outcomes. So, for particular fields if we can figure out how to measure how much students have learned that would be a great accountability metric, as that is the entire purpose of these programs is to attach with their students. That admittedly is difficult, but when it can be done, you should definitely try to. But the second one is earnings outcomes. And so, as you mentioned most students go to college to get a better job. And so, we can look at labor market outcomes to assess how well programs are preparing their students for that. And so, I would really love to see learning and earning outcomes. And you mentioned what is to be applied at the institution level as for the entire university or at the program level and applying it at the program level is definitely the way to go and the reason for that is because you can have a badly performing program at a relatively good institution that escapes all accountability. And you can also have the Congress. You can have a really good program at a relatively poorly performing university that if you do university level accountability, you're going to be punishing that good program. And so, if you can do program accountability you avoid both of those problems and you actually reward the programs that should be rewarded, and you punish the ones that should be punished. Ms. Foxx. Well, I tell you I had that experience when I was the president of the community college. I eliminated a program that had been poorly performing for 10 years and put in a program that was desperately needed by the community. So, I've been through that, and I understand how that works. Ms. Emrey-Arras does the department monitor either non- profits or publics for improper benefits--because you talk about improper benefits for those that have been converted, but I don't know anybody. I mean we're paying football coaches millions of dollars. We're paying presidents and provosts millions of dollars. Who is to say what is a benefit? And is anything happening with non-profits or publics? Ms. Emrey-Arras. All right. So, for our work we did not look at executive compensation at schools. We did focus specifically on conversions of for-profit schools and did find concerns about the lack of monitoring of those schools. Those schools are subject to additional monitoring. After being approved they're in a provisional status. Ms. Foxx. We understand that. So, Mr. Chairman I'd like to put into the record information on abysmal graduation rates for not-for-profit schools and public schools, specifically Thomas University, graduation rate of 14 percent after 8 years, a private institution. Harris Stowe State University 16 percent graduation rate after 8 years. University of New Mexico Taos campus 13 percent graduation rates. There are some other items to put into the record report from AEI and higher education has a tax problem and it's hurting local communities. We'll be putting these into the record. Thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back. Chairman Scott. Next is Representative Wilson from Florida. Ms. Wilson: Thank you Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx for holding this very important meeting. And I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for participating in the meeting today. Increasingly we have seen predatory for-profit institutions mislead the public and abuse their trust by illegitimately converting to tax exempt non-profit status. These dubious conversions often seriously harm students and taxpayers and enrich the for-profit former owner and other private individuals. Congress must do more to hold bad actors to account and ensure that students can make informed decisions about their post-secondary careers. Under existing law non-profit institutions are prohibited from improperly steering profits toward private figures. Unfortunately, in the case for profit converts this happens all too often. The Government Accountability Office found that conversions that involved the former owner or other executives accounted for 75 percent of all Federal aid that went to for- profit converts. Clearly, too many bad actors are slipping through the cracks and this must stop. With that in mind I have a few questions for our witnesses. Ms. Cao what is the harm of students mistakenly believing that a school they're considering attending is mission driven, when actually it is still operating on a quasi-for-profit model? And based on your experience surveying various for-profit conversions, would you say that the improper and harmful way they did this committee has been examining today is limited to only a few bad actors? Ms. Cao. Thanks for the question. In terms of harm to students I think we need to start with all the risks for harm that already exist and are concentrated within for-profit schools. We're talking about high loan rates, high default rates, low earnings and a debt to earnings ratio that result in a life-long debt sentence for students. Start with those results. Now strip away protections like the gainful employment tests, and the 90/10 rule, which help to provide some guardrails and protections for students, and some requirement for for-profits to demonstrate their value. Take those protections away. Now add in the opportunity for predatory institutions to mislead the students by touting their non-profit status. These are institutions that are leveraging the charitable status of non-profits that are reinvesting their resources in order to benefit shareholders that will be extracting those resources. And that's the equation you have with these conversions. All of the risk of for-profit schools, none of the protections, and the added risk of being able to mislead students. Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Director Emrey-Arras, the GAO issued two recommendations to the IRS. What, if any steps, has the IRS taken to implement those recommendations? Ms. Emrey-Arras. Thank you. The IRS said that it is reviewing its process for approving applications for tax exempt status to decide whether or not any changes need to be made, and it is considering our second recommendation on gathering information in a way that it can be used to help with its monitoring. Ms. Wilson. Can you explain to us why it is important for the IRS to collect information and to help identify tax exempt colleges with a for-profit history? Why is that so important? Ms. Emrey-Arras. Well, the IRS itself has identified these organizations as at-risk for improper benefit. So, it has just said that organizations with the for-profit history are at an elevated risk of improper benefit. Given that it has created a compliance strategy to do monitoring of these schools, and the compliance strategy actually originated in concern over for- profit school conversions and then broadened beyond higher education. However, ironically, they couldn't like even identify the schools in our study when they tried to do this compliance effort because they lacked the information in a searchable form. And to respond to an earlier witness statement about cost benefit issues I would say that the IRS has said that they're often collecting this information in narrative fields already. So, the information is already being gathered. It's just not being gathered in a searchable way. So, there wouldn't be much of a cost in terms of changing the field from a narrative field to a data field that could be searched which would then give the IRS the information it needs to actually be strategic in its monitoring and monitor this risk that it's very concerned about. Ms. Wilson. Thank you. I yield back Mr. Chair. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Mr. Walberg. Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the panel for being with us today. Dr. Gillen I think we all agree that the top priority for higher education institutions should be serving students, and that those failing to do so should be held accountable. I guess what I'd ask is what can the department do to improve accountability for all institutions and what can they not do because it is not within their authority? Mr. Gillen. That's a great question. So, the department right now has a lot of capability of providing more information in transparency. So, there are a number of data collection tools that are already used, and so the department can add information to IPEDS, the integrated post-secondary education data system. It could add College Navigator which is a Department of Education website. It could add it to its College Scorecard which is another Department of Education website. And so simply providing more information to students, parents, policymakers, that is kind of the foundation of making wise decisions for everybody. In terms of kind of actually enhancing accountability with carrots and sticks, at that point you would need you know this committee and Congress more broadly to pass legislation to authorize new accountability metrics. And as I mentioned earlier it would be great to see accountability metrics on learning outcomes, on earning outcomes and labor market outcomes more broadly. Mr. Walberg. I guess expanding on that what should Congress consider when we next reauthorize the HEA to protect students and taxpayers from fraud or abuse? Mr. Gillen. So, I think we should start with the date we already have which is the new college scorecard data, and so right now it's producing data on college earnings and debt by student. So, we can create, and we should definitely start with creating some accountability metrics that essentially look at earnings relative to debt. So, are students able to afford to be able to repay their loans? Are programs consistently graduating students that are going to struggle with their student loans? And so, accountability metrics devoted to that would be great. I would also love to see different kinds of types of accountability. So, you know the first level is this program achieving this level? And we can do that with the existing data. We can say OK, if you have you know twice as much debt as your students earn, we're going to cut you off on the total financial burdens. But I'd also like to see growth measures as well. So, if you're taking students that are you know otherwise going to be really struggling in the labor market, and even if they aren't achieving at the top levels of the labor market after attending your program, if you've improved their kind of career trajectory by enough, that would be another great accountability metric. So, I would love to see a plethora of these accountability metrics. You know we shouldn't just think in terms of this is you know the one and only accountability metric. There should be you know a dozen of these, and institutions can meet, you know, 8 to 10 of them and to maintain their eligibility for financial aid program. Mr. Walberg. A real education in the process. OK. Appreciate that. Ms. Emrey-Arras what factors does the IRS examine when determining whether any entity may convert from a for-profit status to non-profit status? Ms. Emrey-Arras. It looks at a variety of materials that the tax-exempt organization submits, however we have concerns that it doesn't always look at the materials it needs to make that call. As noted earlier, we found instances in which the IRS approved applications for tax exempt status involving college conversions without the purchase price of the college, without an independent appraisal of the college. So, there was no known information about the value of the college. Instead, there was just a promise. The applicant promised that in the future you know the market, the price would be a fair one. It would be a market value price, and they would get an independent appraisal in the future. And with that promise the IRS approved the applications. Mr. Walberg. Can you point to a statute or code, or regulatory language that guides this process? Ms. Emrey-Arras. I can point to IRS guidance that says that relationships between tax exempt applicants and for-profit entities may be vulnerable to abuse and need scrutiny to ensure fair market value, and organization earnings cannot improperly benefit private individuals over its charitable mission. And that's what happens. If a college is sold above its fair market value, you have money improperly benefiting individuals in that case. And that is against the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Walberg. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. The Gentlelady from Oregon Ms. Bonamici. Ms. Bonamici. Thank you to the Chair and Ranking Member and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. First, I want to object to the suggestion that was made by Mr. Gillen to use income of an institution's graduates to measure accountability. If someone is doing meaningful work at social services and earning low wages for example, that does not mean that they did get a good education, it likely means that their work is undervalued. As someone with a consumer protection background, I am very glad we're having this hearing today. For-profit colleges have preying on students, families, often by making unsubstantiated claims of the value of educational opportunities they offer, and too many students have found out themselves, with tens of thousands of dollars in debt and no closer to the career they were working toward. A few years ago, I had the opportunity and the honor of meeting with several military veterans in northwest Oregon who told me about how they were defrauded by for-profit colleges that had misrepresented accreditation, tuition, and services. They were targeted, these veterans, because they were eligible for GI benefits, which is a common practice among profit institutions. And now unfortunately, as more students are coming to understand the predatory practices of so many for-profit institutions now as we've heard, some of these same schools are converting to non-profits, but too often is continuing to employ the same harmful practices that take advantage of students. So, Ms. Cao it is clear that the Federal Government has not been conducting the necessary oversight to prevent these conversions, in addition to the problems from the conversions, and in addition to increased Federal oversight and accountability measures, what role can and should states and accreditors play in scrutinizing these conversions? Ms. Cao. Thank you for that question. And I'm glad that you pointed out the impact that these conversions can have on veterans in particular. I want to recognize the progress that this committee and Congress has made in improving the protections in the 90/10 rule. To Mr. Gillen's point about measuring both earnings and learning of students, we actually have that in the form of the Gainful Employment Protection, which measures earnings as a ratio against debt, and we have that in the form of the 90/10 protections, which measure learning by leaving it to the market to determine whether the learning that happens within an institution is worth the cost. And so, we actually have both learnings and earnings measured within the for-profit sector, but what we have seen time and again is that instead of doing the hard work to demonstrate learning and earning of value in their institutions, the most predatory schools choose to cheat by seeking disingenuous conversions to non-profit status. And yes, there are states that are stepping up to address the problem. Both Maryland and the State of California have enacted legislation that authorizes the states to engage in a closer look of insider benefits in the same way that the GAO has pointed out that the IRS and the Department of Education should do. I am worried about the problem that Professor Galle talked about earlier where you have too many kids running toward the ball and it falling through the cracks in the process. Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. In fact, I'm going to ask Professor Galle. I've worked for years on collaboration between the IRS and the Department of Education on the issue of verifying income for income-driven repayment plans. And when you used your analogy, I'm not going to be able to get that out of my head now. I'm thinking about you know trying to coordinate between the two agencies. Should it be that the coordination between the IRS and the Department of Education on for-profit conversions and if so what kind, or is that kind of coordination really achievable based on how you understand the agencies to operate? Mr. Galle. Thank you for that question. I think that some more coordination would certainly be helpful. And there's some small legal obstacle to a full coordination in the sense the IRS is very limited in what kinds of taxpayer information it's allowed to share. And although it is allowed to share taxpayer information for purposes of verifying income driven repayment eligibility, it's not clear that the IRS can share information about whether it's audited a for-profit institution with the Department of Education. But I think more generally the real story here is that ED needs to take the lead and in protecting student interests. It's not the IRS's primary mission. It's not their primary interest, and the statutory authority that IRS is working under doesn't really lend itself to identifying schools that are protecting their own bottom line over the student interest. Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. We are policymakers though, and if the policy doesn't exist that's what we want to hear about. That's one of the purposes of having a hearing like this, so I thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Scott. Thank you. gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Grothman. Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I have a few comments here not directly at anybody in particular because I know there are obviously people out there who are hostile to the idea of a conversion, but of course I know some people or some conversions I think were done for the best of reasons. And I think the idea of making this in essence against the law is a huge, a huge mistake. Do you all agree that there are for-profits converting to non-profits and that it's working out well and there aren't abuses? Ms. Cao. I just want to point out I don't think that any of the witnesses are saying that a for-profit college converting to a non-profit status is against the law. Having pointed out the risks associated with for-profits that engage in revenue extraction, I would love for for-profit colleges to convert to true non-profit status with a commitment to reinvesting 100 percent of revenue in educational and charitable purposes. The concern is not for-profits converting to non-profit status, it is for-profits claiming that they are non-profits without doing the hard work of actually reinvesting resources in students. Mr. Grothman. I guess the question is because I don't know if it's a minority or majority, but there's certainly many, probably a majority when they convert for the best of reasons OK. You may convert for succession reasons OK. You like your college. Your children or whatever are not going to continue down the path, so you switch to make it a non-profit. You may have a situation in which you have a nursing degree, and we have a real shortage of nurses in this country, and in order to establish a coalition with local medical facilities, you're required to go a non-profit, so for the benefit of your nursing students you go a non-profit. You can do fundraising, obviously if you become a 501(c)(3) you can fundraise just like public universities can. And I guess I want to get you folks on the record that these are all three good reasons to convert, and you do not want to prevent these conversions with some legislative bill. Can you see the reasons all these three reasons why they are good reasons why you want to convert? Ms. Cao. Those are excellent reasons for conversion, and if any for-profit school pursues conversion for those reasons, and prohibits insiders from extracting benefit for private gain, then I absolutely support those, and I'll turn to the rest of the witnesses. Mr. Grothman. OK. Could everybody else be on record as saying that there are good conversions, these are good reasons to convert and there are ways in which we keep capped light successful currently for-profit colleges going? Mr. Galle. I would describe those scenarios Congressman as hypotheticals. I didn't see any of the-- Mr. Grothman. They are not hypotheticals, why do you believe--I could think of an example where they do this right now. Why do you feel it's a hypothetical? Mr. Galle. Well, based on my reading of the GAO report in which the vast majority of for example, the government subsidized money going to converted organizations, is going to organizations where the former owner is still keeping the supposedly converted organization a prisoner of their obligations to the original owner. There's no way for these organizations to operate in the way that other non-profits genuinely operate. And if you wanted to really transition and the organization to operate the way that non-profits do, you would free it financially to maximize student outcomes instead of student revenues, and that's just not what this contract said. Mr. Grothman. OK. Any other comments? Mr. Gillen. Yes. So, all those kind of reasons to convert are completely valid. There's tons of conversions out there that I don't think anybody would object to. The other thing I'd like to point out is that all the concerns that have been raised here about improper benefit, that's already forbidden by both the IRS and the Department of Education. And so, this whole issue is whether the Department of Education and the IRS procedures are adequately detecting any sort of hypothetical improper benefit. But improper benefit has not been shown in any of the approved cases, and the Department of Education has denied some of these conversions. So, I feel like some of the comments have been taking place assuming that there's this huge problem, when it's more of a hypothetical problem at this point, or a yet to be proven. Mr. Grothman. I agree. I think there's just some people who are instinctually hateful of an educational institution that isn't part of the government, and as the result they risk throwing out some very good former for-profits. Now if I have any time left, I guess Representative Foxx wants to ask a question. Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Grothman. I would point out that OK. Never mind, I believe Mr. Grothman's time is up. Chairman Scott. The Gentleman's time has expired. The Gentleman from the North Mariana Islands Mr. Sablan. Mr. Sablan. Yes, thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses. I apologize I'm jumping between two committees, two committee hearings. So, I am going to just go out and ask a question for Ms. Cao. Ms. Cao please. Ms. Cao your organization wrote about two conversion transactions--The Non-profit Center for Excellence in Higher Education's purchase of four for-profit colleges owned by Carl Barney and the non-profit Everglades College's purchase of the for-profit Keiser University, which involved the college's former owner donating part of the college price to the non- profit purchaser, enabling them to take hundreds of millions in tax deductions. GAO also mentioned the phenomenon of former owners donating part of their college sale price back to the college. How do you interpret these potential charitable donations from the goodness of their heart? Are they truly charitable? Are they truly from the goodness of their heart? Ms. Cao. Thank you for your question. I want to take a good close look at some of these charitable donations when for- profit schools convert to non-profit status because the schools that you identified come with some real concerns. CEHE, the Center for Excellence in Higher Education, the individuals for the insiders who benefited the most from those conversions were recently found personally liable for operating years of systemic fraud against both students and the Title IV system, drawing down student revenue while misrepresenting to them the benefits that they would get from it. Misrepresenting the amount of tuition, the likelihood of success, and whether or not the programs would ever lead to gainful employment in their fields of study. That type of behavior is indicative of the predatory nature of those institutions, as is the way that those conversions were structured. So, I want to take a look at the way that those conversions were structured because it was a very similar situation in both the CEHE and Keiser instances. You had a conversion that allowed the insider to continue extracting resources through two primary mechanisms--ongoing rent payments, and ongoing loan payments. So, you have an institution that remains in debt to its former boss who continues to hold the reins on the institution by being able to guide decisionmaking through these two contracts that puts the non-profit at a huge disadvantage. As for the reported donations, they are donations of intangible benefits. So, to take one of the examples, the Keiser University example. The original purchase price was 90 percent intangible assets, which the Department of Education does not permit institutions to report on their audited financial statements. So, you have about 60 million dollars of real tangible assets, and you have a non-profit promising to pay 600 million for it. Of course, some of that 600 million gets donated for a tax credit, but you still have a non-profit being obligated to pay through an ongoing debt obligation, significantly more than the value of the real assets that they are obtaining. Mr. Sablan. So, after they cheated the parties, they have to just might as well make it three then. That's shortchanged the American taxpayer from avoiding taxes. Ms. Director Emrey- Arras. Ms. Emrey-Arras. Yes. Mr. Sablan. Director can you tell me about how the value of the for-profit college was determined in the cases the GAO reviewed, where the transaction involved insiders? Was it based mostly on tangible assets like cash, investment, and property? And how does this compare to some of the conversions you looked at that didn't involve insiders? Half a minute. Ms. Emrey-Arras. So, for our case studies we found that those with insiders purchased mostly intangible assets, so goodwill, brand name, accreditation--things you can't touch. It's not money in the bank. It's not property. And in contrast when we looked at five randomly selected conversions without insiders, they mostly purchased tangibles, things that you could touch, cash, investments, property, so there's a real difference there. Mr. Sablan. Thank you. I again thank the witnesses today. Mr. Chairman I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. The Gentleman from Idaho Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'm intrigued by this conversation on the valuation and Mr. Gillen you've touched on this, but I'd like to get a little bit of further thought on that. How does the HEA assess financial well-being of these institutions? And talk about that just for a minute, and do the measurements they use reflect accuracy and comprehensiveness of these institutions? Mr. Gillen please. Mr. Gillen. So, the Department of Education has a number of financial tests that institutions are subject to. The report itself talks about the financial composite score. There's a few others, the asset test, and so these are you know existing tests, financial tests that institutions have to pass. These are mostly looking at the kind of cash-flow health of the organization. They aren't really looking at the long-term sustainability. And so, one of the issues this raises is things like these intangibles are not included in those because those don't show up on you know a cash-flow statement. And so, you can have a lot of situations as the GAO report pointed out where you're using debt to purchase these intangibles. On paper that's going to make your financial evaluation deteriorate because the debt is showing up, is affecting your cash, but the intangibles don't. And so, there's a lot of kind of questions about that. Mr. Fulcher. So, there is kind of a composite score it sounds like that is partly formulated. So, in that sense do you feel like that that's a reasonable predictor of whether or not a college might close for example? The way it's gauged right now by the AGA? Mr. Gillen. So, my understanding just based on the number of colleges who have closed for primarily financial reasons is that these tests that the Department of Education subjects them to will catch most of the schools that are just going to run out of money. And so, it will kind of catch schools that are essentially already bankrupt. But it's not very predictive of schools that are going to become bankrupt. And so, these are tests that will catch, and are designed to catch kind of the kind of worst financial shape schools, but there's a bunch of other schools that are struggling financially. Maybe they're not going to go bankrupt this year or next year, but their long-term sustainability is just really in question. And these tests aren't going to catch that, and they're not really designed to. Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Gillen. So just one more follow-up. I think I still have another minute. Let's talk places you know mainly familiar, if you were on this committee and you were going to reshape how the current law is in order to better assess or improve the calculation of the value, what would you recommend? Mr. Gillen. The value of-- Mr. Fulcher. Of the institutions, the assessment structure. Mr. Gillen. So, I would really try to tailor accountability mechanisms to the specific program at hand. And so, for things like the student loan programs, where the government is providing this loan money to students, and so we should really be tailoring the accountability metrics for that program to loan outcomes. So, our students are able to be repay their loans would be kind of top of mind on that. But that isn't necessarily the same accountability program we'd want to use for say, Pell grants. Pell grants are designed to increase social mobility and equality of opportunity, and so we may not necessarily want to use those same labor market outcomes to evaluate Pell grants. Mr. Fulcher. Got it. Mr. Gillen. We would want to focus more on graduation rates for Pell grant recipients. And so really just I would encourage the committee to think about what would be the most appropriate accountability metric, or metrics for any given program that we're looking at. Mr. Fulcher. Good. Thank you. Mr. Chairman if I have any remaining time, I will yield that to Dr. Foxx. Ms. Foxx. Thank you. I want to thank the Gentleman. You know there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. So, an interpretation of numbers means something. In the 2017-2018 school year private for-profit colleges spent an average of 27 percent of their finances on instruction. Compare that to public schools which spent 29 percent of their money on instruction, private non-profits 31 percent. But the real kicker is in academic support. Private for-profits spent 63 percent of their money on academic support for students, and for public's and private non-profit only lower than 30 percent went to academic support. And we know that the for-profit schools are taking in students that the public's and the not for-profit don't want. They are the toughest students to teach, and yet they're giving them the kind of support that they need. So, the interpretation of numbers is very, very important here, and we will be submitting this for the record Mr. Chairman. I think it's very important that we get these things in the record. Thank you I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. And before I recognize Mr. Takano, I'm going to ask for Mr. Sablan to assume the Chair for several minutes. I have another commitment, so I'll be back in a few minutes. The Gentleman from California Mr. Takano. Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would dispute those statistics. I know in California the public institutions of higher education actually are required by law to spend at least half of their revenue on instruction and cannot spend it on administration. And furthermore, I think it's quite often the case that for-profit institutions do not have really admission standards. And you can reinterpret that to mean that they're taking students that other institutions don't want, but I would dispute the idea that they're taking students that have developmental educational needs and are really delivering on that. Ms. Cao can you clarify something for me and the public? Is it true that borrower defense and the 90/10 rule do not apply to non-profit institutions? They're only for for-profit institutions? Ms. Cao. No. That's borrower defense and the gainful employment rule apply to all institutions. It is just the case that 99.7 percent of borrower defense claims that have been submitted because students feel that they've been defrauded, reflect behaviors at for-profit and covert for-profit institutions. Mr. Takano. What about 90/10? Does 90/10 apply to non- profit institutions? The studies that apply to non-profit institutions the 90/10 rule Ms. Cao. The 90/10 rule applies to for-profit institutions and sometimes to recent conversions. Mr. Takano. OK. I'm seeing Ms. Emrey-Arras shaking her head. 90/10 does not apply to non-profit institutions. Ms. Emrey-Arras. Correct. With the only exception being the reference just made previously that for the year after conversion is approved from a for-profit to a non-profit, they are still subject for that 1-year period to 90/10. But other than that, non-profits are not subject to 90/10. Mr. Takano. But Ms. Cao do we know of non-profit institutions that receive 90 percent or more of their revenue from the Federal Government? Ms. Cao. So, I can think of two conversions within the last 20 years that might present this scenario. So, one is the case of Wright Career College which back in the 90's when the 85/15 precursor to the 90/10 rule was enacted, they told the IRS we're going to go ahead and convert to non-profit status because we want to avoid the accountability of the 85/15 rule. The other one is a recent example. The Dream Center Schools told an accreditor that they wanted to obtain non-profit status for their revenue extracting schools so that they could avoid the 90/10 rule and avoid gainful employment programs. And they said avoiding these regulations will help us operate more efficiently, and of course that efficiency ran those institutions right into the ground. Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cao. Mr. Galle would you give Department of ED the ability to audit non-profit educational institutions that receive Federal money, or lots of Federal money? Would that be part of the solution given enough authority to add to be able to properly oversee non-profits? Mr. Galle. Thank you, Congressman. I think ED already has that authority. The statute obliges Ed to decide whether an organization is a non-profit or public, or proprietary, which means for-profit school. And regulations explain how ED does that. You know it looks at whether IRS has treated the organization as a charity, but then independently ED regulations say ED has to decide whether the organization is providing a nexus of benefit to any private party, which usually means it's giving too much money to its insiders, or it's a prisoner of its debts, or if it's a risk contract. And so, it's already ED's obligation under existing regulations in my view to make sure that organizations are really protecting students and not their bottom line. Mr. Takano. Would you give ED some role in the vetting process of conversions? In other words, IRS establishes that they can become a non-profit, would you insert ED into that process and give them some sort of role in the vetting? Mr. Galle. So, I think it's appropriate for IRS to decide which organization face which tax consequences. It's mostly not IRS's view of their job to decide which organizations are fully charitable or not. Back in the 90's Congress found that IRS wasn't really willing to do that job. They weren't willing to impose the death sentence on organizations, then take away their charitable status, or refuse it in the first place. So, IRS only imposes this thing called an intermediate sanction, which is kind of a penalty tax on people who extract money from their organization. So, IRS is really just not in the business of figuring out who has the incentives to protect students and who doesn't. And so, I think it makes more sense for Ed to fulfill that test, because that's their statutory and regulatory mission. Mr. Takano. And that's how you would change the law. Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Now I would like to recognize Mr. Allen of Georgia please, 5 minutes. Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and obviously this is a very partisan issue that you know our Democrat friends make clear that they want to dismount profit education. I think probably the reason that profit institutions exist is because of what is being taught at public institutions, and the American people want a choice. The fact is that many students, including non-traditional students and veterans, choose their schools because those schools fulfill what they are looking for out of college. Dr. Gillen what are some of the distinguishing features of for- profits schools as compared to their peers in the non-profit and public space? And I'm referring to schools like Prager U and other schools like that teach you know civics and you know amongst the country and those kinds of things. And do they offer different programs or more flexibility? Mr. Gillen. Yes, great question. The for-profit sector historically has been rather innovative. And so, we've seen a number of practices that may have been you know, tried to scatter shot here and there, but they really became standard practice in the for-profit sector. So, helping students fill out the FAFSA was kind of an innovation that really scaled up within the for-profit sector. Allowing nighttime classes for students who are working full- time, they didn't quit their job to go to school during the day, and so offering nighttime and weekend classes was really a specialty of the for-profit sector. And it's spread to some other institutions as well. And really the main advantage of the for-profit sector I think is this kind of experimental lab of how can we improve kind of the educational offerings? Mr. Allen. Right. Mr. Gillen. And I'll throw online education in there. For- profits embraced online education very early, and as we just saw with COVID everybody had begun. And so, before the for-profits have sort of kind of experimented with the process a lot more, it wasn't as rough as a transition for everybody else because we had seen what online education does and how they do it. Mr. Allen. And so, this flexibility is critical. Students assume risk when they take out loans and the Federal Government taxpayer assumes risk by lending that money, but the institution, the one arguably benefiting the most from this arrangement, does not have any direct risk in the Federal student loan program. And in your opinion should colleges and universities have more skin in the game? If so, what are some of the ways we can incorporate institutions in the Federal student loan program? Mr. Gillen. Yes, I think skin in the game ideas make a lot of sense as long as we're restricting ourselves to the current loan system where the government is the lender. So, if we were not in the situation where the government was the lender, where we had private lenders, there would be no reason for skin in the game because the lenders themselves would be doing their due diligence on whether this is a wise one to be making. But both the government and the institutions under the current system our government is under don't have any desire to do their due diligence on these loans, and so you can--we do have a lot of programs that are consistently allowing students to over borrow. And so, one solution to that is skin in the game proposal. And there's a lot of different ways those can be structured, and so one kind of proposal that was tried in Chile was to hold universities responsible for the debt of dropouts. Now we need to be very careful though just replicating that, because one of the things they found in Chile was that this resulted in lower quality of their schools because the schools, knowing that they would be responsible for the debt of dropouts, lowered their standards so more students would graduate, they would have less dropouts. So, we need to be very, very careful in designing the skin in the game proposal, or a risk sharing proposal, but as long as we're in kind of the current status where the government's lending, and they're lending pretty indiscriminately, then some sort of skin in the game or risk sharing proposal I think within proprietors. Mr. Allen. Well, most of the young people that I've talked to about their student loan debt have admitted to me that they had no idea of what they were getting into. And they had no idea how they were going to pay it back. And that's why I had an amendment on the Higher Education Act to make sure they got proper financial counseling. I thank you and I yield back. Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much Mr. Allen. I now recognize Ms. Adams of North Carolina for 5 minutes. Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing today. Director Emrey-Arras, do most conversions involving existing non-profit college with long-standing experience in running a school, taking over for-profit college. And let me repeat that. Do most conversions involve an existing non-profit college with long-standing experience in running a school, taking over the for-profit college? Ms. Emrey-Arras. The answer is no. Of the 59 conversions that we saw there were only five involving an existing non- profit college. Ms. Adams. OK. So, what kinds of non-profit organizations are purchasing these for-profit colleges? Ms. Emrey-Arras. They can be an array of organizations that don't necessarily have experience educating students. We found a scholarship fund, a professional association, a private foundation, and others. So, you have an assortment of non- profits and as we've stated these are not existing non-profit colleges assuming the for-profits. Ms. Adams. OK. So, they may be newly created non-profits being used to engineer these conversions? Ms. Emrey-Arras. Certainly. Of the 59 conversions we found that nine involved completely new non-profits that had no activities prior to the purchase of the for-profit school, and they were more likely to be involved in the insider conversions. So, the conversions without insiders involved almost always existing non-profits that had been established previously, while about half of the insider conversions involved completely new non-profits that had no prior track records. Ms. Adams. OK. So, what does it mean for protecting the best interests of students then? Ms. Emrey-Arras. Well, I think there's a difference when you have an existing non-profit college take over a school versus a foundation or a scholarship fund take over a school. So, I think there's a difference in terms of the educational experience that is brought to bear. Ms. Adams. Right. Thank you. Professor Galle what does a traditional non-profit college board look like? Mr. Galle. Usually a non-profit college board is a group of experts and community Members who volunteer their time. Many of them are large supports of the institution. They might be alums or other donors. They're not typically paid for their time. They have no financial interest in the ability of the organization to pay profits to its service provider, or the former for-profit that it owes a huge IOU to. That is not true of several of the boards that I examined after reading the GAO report. For example, there's one board where the board Members receive about $300.00 an hour for their time as a board member, which is far outside the norm, and certainly you can imagine affects their incentives to go along with the financial interests of the people who they participate with. Ms. Adams. OK. So, when an insider is retaining some or all of the same leadership roles post-conversion, how does it affect the ability of a college to function as a true non- profit? Mr. Galle. I mean it's impossible. First of all, just talk about legally you have a so-called fiduciary duty, you have a legal obligation to look out for the interests of an organization that you're the head of. It's impossible for someone like Brian Miller, who runs both GCU and it's for- profit parent to follow the law in both cases, right because you owe a duty to the non-profit to pay as you know, to get as good as a price as you can from your contracting partner, but you also have a duty on behalf of the contracting partner that you're running to get as much money as you can out of the non- profit, there's just no way to do both. Ms. Adams. OK. Mr. Chairman I wish to submit for the record a letter from the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in support of Federal oversight for non-profit conversions to ensure integrity in these processes and with that Mr. Chairman I'll have to yield back. Mr. Sablan. All right. Without objections it is so ordered. Mr. Sablan. Now I recognize Mr. Keller of Pennsylvania. Sir you have 5 minutes. Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe we can all agree that the government should hold all post-secondary institutions accountable for the benefit of students and taxpayers alike. At the end of the day higher education is as diverse because students are diverse, think differently and learn differently. Pennsylvania has colleges, universities, technical schools, vocational programs, and other types of schools, all designed to get their students ready for the workforce. I hear firsthand how important a qualified workforce is for Pennsylvania's 12th congressional District. No matter what industry we talk about, employers are struggling to find qualified workers. Regardless of what industry or type of college we're talk about, it's clear to me that educational programs should be evaluated based on outcomes achieved by and for students. So, my question is that for Dr. Gillen, thank you for your testimony and for being here today. What can the Department of Education do to improve accountability for each institution under its purview, and what does Congress need to do to give them proper authority in the interest of maximizing accountability? Mr. Gillen. That is a great question, and we can spend you know many, many hearings, specifically on that topic. One of the big obstacles I think to seem kind of impermanent in higher education is actually the accreditation system. And so, one of the problems with the way accreditation which is all universities are required to have accreditation in order to participate in the Federal financial programs. And the accreditation rules typically kind of mandate the inputs and the processes that universities need to follow. And so, if you're mandating the inputs on the processes, you're essentially sort of already you're basically saying you can bake whatever cake you like, but you have to use this chocolate cake recipe right. So, it's no surprise that we end up getting you know a lot of chocolate cakes. Or maybe we need vanilla cakes. Maybe we need you know Korean tacos. Like there's a lot of innovation that should be happening in education right now that we aren't seeing because the accreditation system is a barrier to that innovation. So, I would really like to see what I call escape hatches, introduced them into accreditation. So, accreditation is really kind of a one size fits all solution, and so instead of mandating accreditation for everybody, we can introduce escape hatches. So, for more vocational programs we could have a labor market outcome serve as an alternative to accreditation. So, if enough of your graduates are graduating and getting you know really, really well-paying jobs, that can serve as a form of accreditation for financial aid purposes. We can also do this with learning outcomes. So, for law schools you know if 95 percent of your students are passing the bar exam, you don't really need accreditation. We know you're doing a good job. And so, introducing these escape hatches would allow programs and institutions to innovate on the inputs in the processes, because we're more directly measuring the outputs and the outcomes. So, accountability should 100 percent be focused on outputs and outcomes. Right now, the accreditation system is not focused on that, and it's really limiting I think, the innovation that we could see in higher education. Mr. Keller. Thank you. I was also interested to see that the chart you included in your written testimony which shows which fields have been most successful broken down by academic field, can you speak to the metrics for coming up with the data reflected in the chart, and if there are any notable trends you found? Mr. Gillen. Yes absolutely. So, in the written testimony there's a chart in there that we look at. I think it's the 27 largest academic fields, and so this is using the 2019 college score accreditation. And so, what we did was we recreated the gainful employment regulations. So, at that point the gainful employment regulations had been set aside. And so, what we did was we recreated them, but we applied them to everybody, not just for-profits. And so, when you do that, you can then classify each program as passing, probation or fail. Technically the probation was a public zone in the gainful employment regulations. The probation is the essence of it. And so, when you do that, you saw some fields that you know virtually every program was passing gainful employment, and so fields like mechanical engineering, vehicle repair and maintenance, I think was above 90 percent of graduates were attending these programs that had these excellent outcomes. But then there were a bunch of fields that weren't doing so well, so social work is now around a third of graduates were attending programs that would not have passed gainful employment if it had been applied to them. And then the field that really stuck out as having the worst outcomes was actually law. And so, we did a followup report where we-- Mr. Sablan. I'm sorry, but we need to get on to the next member. Thank you very much sir for your-- Mr. Keller. Thank you. Mr. Sablan. Let's stay in Pennsylvania. Ms. Wild you have 5 minutes please. Ms. Wild. Thank you so much Mr. Chairman. I'd like to direct my first question to Ms. Cao. I hope I got that correct and thank you all for being here on this very important subject. Ms. Cao whenever I am engaging in conversations about higher education, I want students to be central to the discussion. And just by way of background, I want you to know that in my district, which is the Lehigh Valley, I actually have six colleges and universities that are non-profits as well as a couple of for-profit schools, so this is an area of great, great interest to me. I believe it's vital that students who are pursuing higher education are able to do so with the peace of mind that the college they attend has their best interests in mind and will invest its resources to provide the highest quality education and the best outcome. I think we all feel that way about it. So, what I'd like to do with that as a backdrop, I'd like to discuss the effects on students when for-profit colleges convert to non-profit colleges. When that happens is the college required to improve the quality of its academics or better support student's learning? And all as the second part of my question at the same time. After undergoing a conversion, does the college have to improve the outcomes of students, like increasing job placement rates after graduation, or lowering default rates on student loans? And I'll be quiet now and let you answer. Thank you. Ms. Cao. Sure, thank you. So, in order to be recognized by the Department of Education as a non-profit, a college does not have to improve the quality of the learning within the school or improve the quality of the outcome that the students experience. However, to kind of return to the core distinction between non-profit and for-profit status, genuine non-profits make that commitment to reinvest 100 percent of resources in student learning. And to go to Professor Galle's point about fiduciary status, genuine non-profits owe a fiduciary responsibility for the educational mission of their school, and no fiduciary responsibility to investors or shareholders. And what that means is that with all of those Title IV resources, going to support student education, you end up with better outcomes, and you end up with better investment in student's education. I want to go back to provide a clarification on the numbers regarding instructional spending that Ranking Member Foxx referenced earlier on, because this is something that I described in my written testimony. So, when you look at the share of student's tuition dollars, the share of HEA dollars that is going to instruction, the numbers are pretty clear about what the difference is between sectors are. So, to take 4-year schools at a for-profit school students are getting 26 cents on the dollar. At a non-profit they're getting on average 79 cents. And at a public institution they're actually getting more than a dollar's worth of instructional spending, $1.13. So that's the best bang for your buck. And the reason this is different from the numbers that Ranking Member Foxx was describing, is because she's incorporating at the denominator all of the revenue which includes revenue for Hadron collector generators for the research farm, or the revenue produced by the non-profit hospital that is attached to the institution. So, when you're really looking at what students are getting, and I'm so glad you understood the conversation, it's a really different deal at for-profit institutions versus non- profit and public counterparts. Ms. Wild. Can I just ask you in the time that I have left, are there particular types of students that are more likely to attend a college that recently converted to non-profit? Ms. Cao. Yes. So, the for-profit schools who are engaging in these conversions are among the most predatory. We know that the target low-income students, Black and Hispanic students, working parents and students who don't have family support, but are rather supporting their families. And returning to the case of the Ashford conversion to University of Arizona's global campus, you have the leadership there expressly saying, ``We are pursuing this conversion in order to better target low-income students and minority students.'' Ms. Wild. How does the quality of their academic instruction while they're in college and their outcomes after compare for students who attended a recently converted non- profit college from students that attended a non-profit that never operated as a for-profit? Ms. Cao. The problematic conversions behave just like for- profit schools with the difference of a for-profit schools have to live by the Gainful Employment and 90/10 rules. So, the outcomes are going to be significantly worse at converted schools that are genuine non-profits. Ms. Wild. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. I yield back. Mr. Sablan. All right. Thank you very much Ms. Wild. I am told that Ms. Miller-Meeks is next. Ms. Miller-Meeks? All right we're going to try Mr. Owens? Mr. Good? Mrs. McClain. Mr. Good. Bob Good's here. Mr. Sablan. Oh, Mr. Good. All right sir welcome, you have 5 minutes sir thank you. Mr. Good. Thank you very much and thank you to all of our guests here today. And my questions will be directed to Dr. Gillen please. In your testimony you discussed how making available important data related to post-graduation outcomes for specific colleges and specific degrees can help students and families make good investments in their higher education, and that this trend could lower the overall cost of education. That said, do you have a recommendation regarding how Congress can help promote and facilitate this data transparency without also expanding the size and scope of government? Mr. Gillen. Yes absolutely. So, the way the current college score card data is collected is it's focused just on students who are receiving Federal financial aid. And so, I think that's a completely appropriate approach because these Pell grants and students' loans are being provided to these students, just as kind of congressional and governmental due diligence, we need to be able to assess the overall outcomes of those programs, and so we need to be able to track the outcomes for students who receive these. So, I think that's a very appropriate approach, kind of figuring out what information we need to determine how effective financial aid programs are and then collecting it. Mr. Good. Thank you. You also had noted, and I'm paraphrasing a little bit, that you know since colleges are locked in a never-ending academic arms race, to spend as much as possible in the pursuit of prestige, and this has a very negative consequences regarding college affordability, and it can make it easy for insiders to hide excessive spending. Do you feel that accountability regarding degrees and the labor market outcomes is enough to lower the costs of higher ed, or what else might you recommend? Mr. Gillen. Yes, so this is in reference to the Bowen's laws portion of my written testimony, and just very brief background. So, with Bowen's laws the basic is that when you can observe quality, you're competing based on reputation or perceived quality. Mr. Good. Right. Mr. Gillen. And one of the ways you can increase reputation or prestige, or perceived quality is to spend more money on kind of flashy items. So, you know Nobel Prize winning faculty, high-achieving students you know big shiny new ads, that kind of stuff. And so, you know that's all great, but that all costs money, and so schools are locked in this never-ending cycle of needing more revenue. And so as soon as they get more revenue, they use it to increase spending, and so if you look at the kind of overall trend of what happens to higher education in this Bowen's Law world, is we're going to see a never-ending trend of increases in spending. So, one of the ways we can escape that is by having better metrics on outcomes and outputs. And so, these accountability mechanisms that basically publicize, and try to encourage schools to have better outputs and outcomes would do a lot to fix that because right now there's a handful of law schools in the country that do a great job in terms of labor market outcomes relative to student debt. There's also a ton of them that don't, where their students are really struggling with their student debt. And so right now the question hey, should I go to law school doesn't make any sense because it really depends on which law school we're talking about. Some of them have great outcomes, some of them don't. And so, in providing students with enough information that they can make that distinction between those two types of programs is absolutely critical. And then once students are competing--sorry, once universities are competing based on the outcomes, we've basically escaped the Bowen's Law world and then we move into more of kind of a standard competitive environment where schools are competing to increase quality and lower cost. And that's a very healthy environment to be in because any innovation that does either one of those will be adopted widespread by universities across the country. Mr. Good. At the risk of offending my many friends who are lawyers here in Congress, it was interesting to see that one of the worst returns in your data provided was that for the law degrees, in light of we've got such a growth in that area in the country. Just speaking though generally with regard to the cost of higher education, what role do you think that the overall Federal spending on education might be impacting the overall increasing costs of higher education? Mr. Gillen. So, there's a big debate among scholars about the extent to which Bowen's hypothesis is--I'm sorry the Bennett hypothesis is indicative. And so, essentially there's an argument that some scholars make that increases in government funds will encourage schools to raise tuition to essentially harvest those funds without actually lowering the cost to the students. Now there's been you know multi-decade debate about how big of a problem this is, and so unfortunately, we can't go into too much detail. But right now, if I see a study that says it's less than 20 cents on the dollar, or a study that says it's more than 80 cents on the dollar, I'm skeptical. Anything in between there is pretty consistent with the evidence that I've seen, so it's not that schools raise tuition by a dollar for every dollar that the government provides, and it's not that they don't raise it at all. It's somewhere in the middle. Mr. Good. Thank you, sir. I see my time has expired. I appreciate your answers. Mr. Sablan. Yes, Chairman Scott is back in the room and so Mr. Chairman you have the gavel please. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Can you--is Mr. Levin next? Mr. Sablan. No. I think it's Ms. McBath, well she was here, all right. Mr. Chairman McBath, Ms. Hayes was here, yes, you're right Mr. Levin is he here? Mr. Levin. I am. Chairman Scott. The Gentleman from Michigan Mr. Levin. Mr. Sablan. Mr. Levin you have 10 minutes. Mr. Levin. Ooh. Mr. Sablan. 5 minutes, 5 sorry. Mr. Levin. I'll take the first offer. Thanks to you both. All right. Well, this is I thank the chairman for this hearing. It's super educational I think for the American people. Over the last decade for-profit institutions have converted to non- profit institutions at an accelerated rate, and we've seen an alarming amount of these conversions happening at ethically dubious for-profit colleges, converting to non-profit institutions to circumvent accountability, or repair their reputations, line the pockets of owners and executives, and evade tax liabilities to the American people. Take for example Dream Center, a non-profit holding company that pushed for the purchase of three for-profit college chains with the intent to convert these schools to non-profit institutions even as the Higher Learning Commission revoked accreditation for some Dream Center owned schools over concern that the intent of the conversion was to and I'm quoting, ``Cloak predatory practices.'' This led Dream Center to misrepresent and defraud millions of students into believing they were attending a fully accredited institution when they were not. Within 18 months of the transaction Dream Center closed or sold every school. So, I want to ask Ms. Cao about this. We've seen a lot of these abrupt and expensive closures of schools that are converted from for-profit to non-profit. For instance, the committee found that the Dream Center conversion and subsequent collapse, will cost taxpayers at least 600 million dollars. Is there something particular about these conversions that makes them likely to close abruptly like this? Ms. Cao. Yes. Thank you so much for that question. And the Department of Education did find that the collapse cost taxpayers 600 million dollars. Mr. Levin. It's incredible. Ms. Cao. One of the executives at Dream Center, who was extracting revenues for his family's foundation, actually estimated the overall cost of the closure would be 1 billion dollars, and that's part of the committee's report as well. But I think of the increased risk of closure that the GAO found in highlighting that 15 of 16 insider driven conversions went from being financially responsible, to financially irresponsible within the span of 1 year, is one of the real risks to both students and taxpayers of allowing these for-profit conversions to go forward. I talked about how non-profits can never extract revenue for owners, and how for-profits have a restriction where when they are already financially unstable, owners cannot extract revenue for private benefit, or at least there are some restrictions in their ability to continue to withdraw equity. But when you have a for-profit college that continues revenue extraction, but as a non-profit, they are free to extract dollar after dollar to the point where they are running their institution into bankruptcy. And in the case of Argosy, you saw owners extracting revenue to the point where the institution had used up all the Title IV funds, and then go after student's stipends in order to be able to balance their budgets. And then run out of all funds entirely. And so, I think there is a real-- Mr. Levin. And milk it until it doesn't exist anymore basically. I mean since time is limited, let me just ask you to kind of zoom out because I mean in a way these stories about the particular institutions are so compelling and disgusting you know. What I want to ask you is how can we understand the impact of these particular stories, these conversions and these subsequent closures on higher education and students as a whole? How are the for-profit conversions impacting other schools in both the for-profit and non-profit sectors, and how does that you know, end up impacting college students all across the country? Ms. Cao. Thanks. So, when for-profit conversions happen among the most predatory schools, that impacts the rest of the for-profit field because any school that wants to remain with for-profit regulations when it has this option of a giant loophole, is going to be either too small, too unsophisticated, or too scrupulous to lawyer up and take advantage of the for- profit conversions that allow them to operate in an even more predatory manner. When it comes to the non-profit status, there is also I think a corrupting impact of for-profit conversions on non- profits. And so, Mr. Gillen mentioned an arms race, and I think that the aggressive and predatory recruitment of for-profit conversions is going to, and already has created an arms race for the non-profits to try to distinguish themselves from the covert non-profits, and that's going to draw resources away from student instruction in order to be able to educate students through recruitment and marketing practices. Mr. Levin. All right well thanks. Mr. Chairman my time's expired, but I just have to say that when I ran the State workforce system in Michigan and created the No Worker Left Behind Program when we put 162,000 Michiganders back to school, we proudly worked with State institutions, community colleges, non-profits and for-profits, and we've got to fix this problem so that students can still have the full panoply of options. With that I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Next the Gentlelady from Iowa Ms. Miller-Meeks. Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much Chairman Scott. And Ms. Cao you actually inspired this question. You said, ``Higher tuition equals higher debt.'' As the first person in my family of 10 to not only go to college, the only one to ever go to medical school, I am extremely concerned about the rising cost of tuition. At the State level, as a State Senator I worked on these issues, especially for the health professions. However, student loans, loan forgiveness for locating to rural areas, J-1 Visas, and scholarships don't address my most pressing concern, and that's the skyrocketing cost of colleges. Mr. Gillen you've done a lot of work investigating why college prices are rising, and one reason you mentioned earlier was the Bennett Hypothesis. Could you describe this a little bit more in detail, and also other drivers of rising tuition and suggest ways Congress could address the fundamental drivers of college cost when we reform the HGA because that in turn is what creates more college debt is the rising costs. Thank you. Mr. Gillen. Yes absolutely. So, one of the main contributors to rising college costs is this Bowen's Law world that I described previously where there's essentially never- ending need for any non-profit, but in this particular case, colleges to have more revenue. There's always going to be some other program, or some more students, or some initiative that the University wants to take and that they think will improve their college. So, there's never going to be enough money for colleges. There's a couple of amusing kind of descriptions of this process by scholars of higher education. So, Derek Bach, former President of Harvard, he wrote a book where he described colleges as just like compulsive gamblers in the sense that there's never going to be enough money to their needs. There's a scholar at Cornell, Ronald Ehrenberg who described the college's need for money as analogous to the cookie monster, just whatever cookies are available, cookies being revenue in this case will be devoured. A co-author of mine, Robert Martin, described higher education finance as a black hole, and it will just suck up any revenue that's around. And so, the question is OK, what happens when we institute a financial aid program in this environment? And that's where the Bennett Hypothesis comes in. And so, Secretary Bennett, he was Secretary of Education back in the 80's. He said that the Federal Government providing financial aid will actually encourage these schools to raise their tuition--to harvest that aid money. And that's really the combination of these two. So, the Bennett Hypothesis is a danger because we live in this Bowen's Law world. And so, the question is OK well how big of a problem is it? And scholars, as I've mentioned, have been debating this. There was a real turning point around 2012 where almost all the scholarship that has come out since then, because it's using better data, and better school techniques, is finding some evidence in support of the Bennett Hypothesis, regardless of sector. So, it's you know an issue at the for-profit sector. It's an issue at public's, it's an issue at private non-profits. And but there are some things that could be done to sort of attain the Bennett Hypothesis. And so, some of the things you can do is make sure that it is need based. So, programs like the Pell grant are much less likely to suffer from kind of tuition inflation as a result of the program, than kind of a universally available program that is not subject. Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much for that, and it's the same thing that plagues our healthcare with third party payment, and I'm going to yield the balance of my time to Representative Foxx. Thank you so much. And thank all the panelists. Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much for yielding. I want to point out that one of our witnesses has said non-profits can never extract revenues for individual benefit. Well, I'd like to point out that private colleges and universities, some are paying exorbitant fees to their presidents. University of Southern California, 7 million dollars. University of Chicago, 6 million dollars. Thomas Jefferson University, 5 and a half, Columbia, 4 and a half million. Harvard, 3 and a half million. University of Pennsylvania, 3 million. Wesleyan University, 3 million. University of Rochester, 3 million. Texas Christian, 2 and a half and the Savannah College of Arts and Design, almost 2 and a half million. I would say that students going to those schools would say that that is extracting revenue for individual benefit. And then Mr. Chairman, we'll enter that into the record. This has come I believe from it's a Chronicle of Higher Education, and also the top 10 salaries of public schools. Georgia State, 3 million, Auburn, almost 2 million, Texas A and M over 1 and a half, Ohio State, 1 and a half. Texas A and M, system office 1.3. University of Pittsburgh, 1.2. University of Virginia 1.2. University of Nebraska a little over one million. University of Houston 1 million, a little over, and Arizona State University incidentally, over 1 million. I would say those publics and those privates are certain extracting revenue for personal gain. And I think the record needs to be straightened out. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Those documents will be entered into the record without objection. The Gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Mrvan. Ms. Cao you have written about Perdue University's joint venture with Kaplan University. Based on your knowledge of this conversion, do you see any unique risks posed by public college contracts with for-profit colleges compared to a for-profit college's conversion to non-profit status? Ms. Cao. Could you repeat the second half of your question, I'm sorry I didn't hear it. Mr. Mrvan. That's OK. The second half of it is do you see any unique risks posed by public college contracts with for- profit colleges compared to a for-profit college's conversion to non-profit status. Ms. Cao. Got it. Thank you for clarifying. Yes, so I think of the risks of for-profit colleges converting in a way where they appear to have public college status, or a public college affiliation is even more pronounced because of the public trust that students have in a school like Purdue University, or the University of Arizona. That is why shareholders at Graham Holdings or the shareholders at Zovio are so excited when they can find a public institution that will lend its good name to one of these for-profit college conversions. And I think the students have really spoken for themselves. Purdue University Global is the only public college that has garnered more than 100 student complaints through the borrower defense program. And I also want to add that there are two additional risks with these for-profit public conversions occur. One is the double revenue extraction. So, you have funds from student tuition dollars going to both Graham Holding and to support Purdue. And the third harm is that equity harm that I mentioned at the beginning. You have separate unequal institutions where poor students are subsidizing wealthier students. Mr. Mrvan. Well, thank you very much and I yield back my time. Chairman Scott. Let's see. Good, McClain, the Gentlelady from Tennessee Ms. Harshbarger. Ms. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time. This is directed to Dr. Gillen. I have constituents in East Tennessee that a traditional 4-year degree is really it's not the most practical steps for those high school students, and really for a lot of the adults looking for a post-secondary degree. And I absolutely agree that we need to have accountability measures put in place for any institution, like the learning versus earning, versus growth. And there's no way to measure out if we don't have those measures. And Dr. Gillen for-profit colleges don't just take public money and in the form of those Title IV student aids programs, but because they do pay taxes to State and Federal Governments, really, they're taxpaying institutions basically. In addition to paying taxes, these schools employ thousands of people. They contribute a lot of other ways to a local economy or community. And my question is this. Are you aware of any analysis that's done to assess the real value-added institutions have on their communities? What is it that they do to these communities? How do they give back? And have you assessed anything that would show us what these measures do and those employees, in hiring all those employees, what kinds of value does that have on the community? Mr. Gillen. Yes, sorry about that. So, the first part of the question you know what is the overall social impact of-- these higher education, and does it distinguish between for- profit, non-profit and public. And so, whenever you have either a subsidy or a tax, that's going to introduce a wedge between the social return to any particular activity and the private return. And so, when you look at higher education if you compare say the public university to a for-profit university. So, the public universities are generally heavily subsidized by the State that the reside in, and they do not pay taxes. And so, you've got sort of two wedges that are kind of present for public universities. The for-profit universities, not only do they not get subsidized, but they do pay taxes. And so that's going to introduce a big wedge between the social rate of return relative to the private rate of return. So, if you just for simplicity just assume the equivalent private rate of return for students at those, you can see very, very different social rates of return because of the subsidization and the different tax laws. As for what higher education does for the communities, it really depends on the particular community, and on the universities within it. And so, a lot of states actually import college graduates, and so a particular State may really generously fund its colleges to try and increase the educational attainment level at the population, and then it sees a lot of those students just move next door because they want to live in New York City or something like that. And so, it's an open question how much at the local community level the universities are going to benefit, because it really depends on how many of those students remain within the community, and how many go to some other community. At the national level that's not as much of an issue. You still have students going internationally after they graduate, moving overseas. But at the community level that's much broader. Ms. Harshbarger. You know our goal should be to get, it doesn't matter which university if it's public, for-profit, not for-profit, you know the goal is to get these students educated, or to give these adults post-secondary degree. As Dr. Miller-Meeks said, I was the first one in my family to ever go to college and get a Doctorate degree in pharmacy. And nobody encouraged me, that's just something that I wanted to do along the way. And I went to a private institution, and it cost a lot of money. And I paid every penny of that back. You know we look at these endowments at some of these bigger not-for-profit universities. They could bankroll every student that came through their doors if they wanted to. So, I guess just having those measures in place to see how successful these for-profit, not for-profit universities are, it's how you do it in the business world. You've got to make sure. And my part of the State, in East Tennessee we need skills training. We need things to where they can get out and get a good job. And I'm now knocking higher education, but I'm looking for you know, my emphasis is on workforce development per se in my district. But I appreciate your answers. I think that we need to look and assess what these for-profit universities do and do some kind of a study to show what they do to imply. They employ all these people in their communities. Let's find out what kind of benefit that has been and measure it that way as an outcome. But I appreciate your answers, and everybody being here, and I yield the remainder of my time to Dr. Foxx. Chairman Scott. Actually, there's not any time left. Ms. Harshbarger. Well, I'm so sorry. Chairman Scott. The Gentlelady's time has expired. Next the Gentleman from New York Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman and to the Ranking Member. Thank you to our witnesses for all appearing before us today. Your testimony has placed a spotlight on the failings of the Federal Government to adequately protect our students. Make no mistake about that. Over the last 30 years for-profit colleges have offered minimal educational value, but have collected millions of dollars in tax breaks, all while saddling thousands of students with crushing debt. In recent years as skepticism of for-profit schools has continued to grow, these same predatory institutions have taken it upon themselves to restructure and convert to non-profits. They have done so not because they have seen the error of their ways, but because they seek to subvert the regulatory burdens placed on for-profit colleges, while continuing to defraud students and benefit financially. Ms. Cao how do for-profit colleges in disguise, or as you refer to them covert non-profits harm students? Ms. Cao. Thank you for your question. And first I just want to take a point of personal pride to say that we overlapped at Stanford University, and you graduated with many of my friends from Harvard Law School and I was so excited to see you elected. And I'm excited as well for your focus on the harm that students experience as a result of the activities of covert for-profit schools. And to return to the student harm, again I think the students have really spoken for themselves. When you look at the borrower defense claims that students submit, when they feel that they've been defrauded by institutions of higher learner, when they feel that their tuition dollars and debt dollars have been taken from them by deceptive and abusive practices you see crystal clear that it is for-profit and covert for-profit schools that are deceiving students. You can look at over 300,000 borrower defense claims the Department of Education has identified by institution, about 25 percent are from covert for-profit colleges, about 75 percent are from for-profit colleges. Less than 1 percent come from the non-profit sector, and there are no public institutions on that list except for the affiliation of Purdue University Global. So, I think that it's really clear that the student harm is coming from the for-profit and covert for-profit sector, and if we don't do something about it, those types of harms are going to expand to corrupt the influences that are in place even further. Mr. Jones. Thank you for that. And what are the risks covert non-profits pose to taxpayers in particular? Ms. Cao. Yes. So, when it comes to stewardship of taxpayer money, there is a particular risk when covert for-profit owners can draw down revenue with one hand and then pass it on to insiders for personal enrichment on the other hand. Representative Foxx talked about the salaries of non-profit presidents. But you have the president of Harvard making 3 million dollars a year, and the president of Keiser University, one of these covert for-profits, drawing down 34 million dollars a year through rents and loans paid by the non-profit that he owns. And I think that is a huge problem for taxpayers, especially if Congress takes a look now to double down on the investment and low-income students for things like Pell grants. You have to protect that investment from being handed right into the pockets of insiders with little benefit for students. Mr. Jones. I so appreciate that illuminating testimony. And with the approximate minute and 20 seconds I have left, I wanted to delve into the demographics of the impacted students. We've touched a little bit on how these for-profit colleges in disguise arm students. But we know that certain communities really bear the brunt of the adverse impacts, and so can you talk a little bit about who these students are in terms of the demographics, and you know what's the profile of these students who enrolled in these covert non-profit colleges? Ms. Cao. It is low-income students, Black and Hispanic students, working students, working mothers in particular, and students who are supporting their families instead of being supported by their families. In the world of research, we talk about reverse redlining or predatory inclusion, and I have a background representing low-income borrowers in the sub-prime mortgage crisis. There you talk about how banks have excluded minority borrowers, and what that leaves space for is predatory institutions to come in and offer a sub-prime product, saying that they're providing access, when in fact they are extracting wealth from those communities that need it most. And that's what we had in in higher education as well. We have predatory inclusion so that individuals who have been pushed out of valuable resources in the higher education field are being steered toward predatory actors. Mr. Jones. Thank you so much Ms. Cao. Go Stanford and I yield back Mr. Chairman. Chairman Scott. Thank you. The Gentleman from North Carolina Dr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say thank you to all of the Members who have come to the committee. I appreciate your perspective. I want to say specifically Mr. Galle you made one point that you thought that it was education's duty here, not the IRS to police these institutions, and I think that's correct. I think a lot of the comments here may have been misguided a little bit, and they obviously have a different reason for saying this. I do want to point out one thing though. I mean it's very interesting that we're just attacking the private institutions--I mean the profit not for-profit status. And if you look at our--I don't know if any of the other panelists have actually been on a college campus recently and looked at where money is actually spent on college campuses. Yes, there surely are aberrations and abuses in salaries, but if you look at what the taxpayers are paying for, and you look at what's happened with administrative bloat, I would submit that that is infinitely more of a problem to the American taxpayer, to the American student, than any of these problems that are heretofore this committee has brought up. This is the main reason that students are in debt these days is because administrative bloat has far outweighed payments on anything academic-wise, and to say otherwise is really just ignoring the issue and just attacking the for- profit institutions. So that said, Dr. Gillen let me just ask one brief question, because I'm going to cede a lot of my time to Dr. Foxx who's smarter than I am on these things. The premise behind this hearing seems to be that for-profit conversions are a big, huge public policy issue. They're happening often, and they're not being handled appropriately, and that legislation is needed to fix this problem. Is that premise correct? Is it true, or are we dealing with such a huge, massive problem that several of the committee people have said, of the more than 5,000 institutions of higher education, how many of these are actually impacted by conversions? Dr. Gillen I'll let you answer those questions please. Mr. Gillen. So very few former formerly for-profits seek to undergo conversion, and even fewer of those involve insiders. So, this is a relatively small problem. And to the extent it's a problem, it's already forbidden, so the IRS doesn't allow an improper benefit and the Department of Education doesn't allow an improper benefit. So, the real question is does this--do the existing procedures used by IRS detect improper benefit? And so, if not, then that's an argument to improve those procedures. But the idea that all for-profits who undergo conversion are bad, I don't think is valid. And it's not even really internally consistent right, because we've been hearing about oh for-profit's bad, non-profit's good. Well, we're converting for-profits into non-profits, but they're still not good. So, it's kind of a strange approach. Mr. Murphy. Well, I thank you because it's you know without a doubt obviously our job as Members of Congress are to hold institutions accountable, but this is a chasing, in my opinion like we say in medicine, a wild herring. It's not really, it's more of a problem in search of a solution, and or rather a solution in search of a problem. I'm sorry for the mix-up. But I mean if you really look back, and I'll get on my rant of administrative bloat, and if we're actually caring about what's going on for students, that's the whole premise of this, if we're caring about what's going on for students, then look and see what colleges, public colleges, universities, private colleges and universities, how they are spending their money these days. And it may not be on massive salaries, but it is on administrative bloat, and that's been the death knell of higher education these days. With that I'll yield back the balance of my time to Dr. Foxx thank you. Ms. Foxx. I thank the Gentleman for yielding. And I would like to-- Mr. Gillen. You got muted there Representative Foxx. Ms. Foxx. Oh, OK. Well, the Federal student loan 3-year default rates by sector and separation cohort, borrowers, and repayment in 2009 to Fiscal Year 202017 by the college board it shows public 2-year schools have a 14.4 percent default rate. The for-profit schools have a 12 percent default rate. And so, we see that 2-year colleges have a worse default rate. And I would like to ask a quick question of Ms. Emrey-Arras. From Dr. Adams, she asked you which conversions were better. And I want to know were you expressing a personal opinion, or one based on research in your official capacity? Ms. Emrey-Arras. I'm not sure that I answered on that front. Can you remind me? Ms. Foxx. Well, she asked you whether it was better for schools to go to for-profits, but I can get you the exact question and submit it to you for the record. But it sounded as though in your official capacity you are expressing an opinion, and I was just clarifying that. Ms. Emrey-Arras. I don't recall that, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have for the record. Ms. Foxx. OK thank you. Ms. Emrey-Arras. Sure. Ms. Foxx. I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. The Gentlelady from North Carolina Ms. Manning? Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to address my first question to Ms. Cao, and I don't believe this is something that any of my colleagues from North Carolina have raised, but it's of great interest to constituents in my State. Reporters are raising questions about a non-profit that is a covert for-profit that's taking place in my State, and you're nodding your head. You probably already know about this. The Century Foundation reported on documents obtained from IRS and the Department of Education showing that Dr. Arthur Keiser who I believe has been discussed today, converted his for-profit college into the non-profit Keiser University to use it as a cash cow. And new reports indicate that Dr. Keiser has funneled donations from Keiser University to a traditional financially struggling, non-profit, St. Andrews University in North Carolina to assert control of that institution, and potentially leverage that control to benefit Southeastern College, a for- profit school which Dr. Keiser owns. We are extremely concerned about this. Of course, I'll be following up with Andrews University for more information, but I am getting calls from very concerned constituents. Can you expand on these findings, and do they raise wider concerns both for St. Andrews, but also for other conversions? Ms. Cao. Thank you. Yes. And so, we have taken a look at St. Andrews and the relationship with Keiser University. You know you've heard of corporate takeovers within the private industry. Here we have a hostile takeover of a non-profit school that was experiencing financial strain. And coming out of this pandemic, and of economic hardship, we're going to have a lot of small, community-serving non- profits that are experiencing financial strain. So, I think watching the pattern of this instance, and watching the patterns with these for-profit college conversions more broadly, is not responding to a hypothetical question, but it is responding to the early signs of a trend that is about to become much more dangerous and could be more widespread if action isn't taken now to reverse the trend. Getting back to the example of St. Andrews, we have a pattern that we've seen before where the Keiser family has leveraged the wealth that it obtained by extracting resources from other for-profit college conversions and used that wealth to buy control of the board of St. Andrews. With that control the Keiser family is operating St. Andrews is a way where it's starting to operate similar to a vassal State, which is to say it is not operating in the best interest of students, but rather helping to extract resources and deliver them to the for-profit school that is currently held by the Keiser family, Southeastern. And what we've seen is this example where they've opened up a new campus, called the new campus an extension of St. Andrews, but it's actually listed at the same address as one of the campuses for the for-profit school that the Keiser family also operates. I think it is possible that we'll see an application for a conversion in the near future, but even if not this relationship of a non-profit being taken over and its good name used to support insiders is a perfect example of the concerns this hearing addresses. Ms. Manning. Thank you so much. We have several non- profits, small non-profits in my community that as a result of this pandemic are really struggling. I would hate to see this happen to any of our other good schools, so I'm going to switch the next question to Administrator Emrey-Arras. If you could help me understand what are the tools of the Department of Education, the IRS, and Congress can use to make sure this doesn't happen? Ms. Emrey-Arras. Thank you for the question. So, the IRS can review proposed conversions when new non-profits are applying for tax-exempt status. So, they can actually ask for the purchase price of a college. They can look at independent appraisals, versus getting a promise that a price will be fair market value. So, they could actually request materials to help make that decision, and if they decide that a sale is not going to be a fair market value one, they can deny the application for tax- exempt status. After that, they have the ability to monitor tax-exempt organizations at a future date and our recommendation will help them do that more. On the education side, you know the department has done a lot in recent years to step up its oversight for those initial applications right? It's looking at more documents. It's looking at key bids, it's looking at contracts, it's really getting into the nitty-gritty to figure out is there improper benefit going on. So that's a good thing. But at this point it's not looking at what happens after it grants its approval, so those schools are in provisional status for one to 3 years, they're supposed to be closely monitored. Education already has their financial statements. It's using them for other stuff, but it's not actually looking at them to see if any improper benefit is happening at that point, and we think it should. Because you can find information in the statements about ongoing leases and other kinds of vendor arrangements that could raise questions about improper payment. So, we made a recommendation that the department use the information it already has to do a better job of monitoring, and the department agreed with us. Ms. Manning. Thank you and I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Cawthorn. Mr. Cawthorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I sincerely appreciate all of the witnesses to have come on to be able to testify before us. I am disappointed that we are using our time with all the brilliant minds on this committee to be working on examining colleges converting from for-profit to non-profit status which impacts roughly 0.1 percent of for-profit colleges, and just in layman's terms that is 3 colleges a single year. I feel like the brilliant minds that are at use here and on this committee as our witnesses could be used for something more tangible, but I will take some time to ask you a question Dr. Gillen. The Higher Education Act makes all institutions, regardless of their tax status, ineligible to operate with Title IV student aid programs if too many of its students default on their loans within 3 years of leaving the college. Could you comment on whether this cohort default rate metric is effective, or also how can we as Congress, how can we improve upon it? Mr. Gillen. Yes. So, the cohort default rate is I think a perfectly fine accountability metric. The problem is that it's used as the accountability. And so, this is really the only way that schools can lose Federal financial aid for any sort of outcome that they have. And so, the cohort default rate could certainly be improved, so right now it looks at just the first 3 years after the loans, and so I think we could benefit from extending that. So, whether we want to look at you know 5, 10 or all of the above, maybe we have 3 different cohort default rates that we examine. I think that would be real useful. Another potential issue, particular for the 3-year rate is that a lot of students can be in deferment or forbearance which won't show up as defaults on our loans. But these are so indicative of the students who are struggling with their student loans. So, I think to really addressing kind of those flaws within--not flaws, but improvements in the cohort default rate. In terms of kind of the longevity of the cohort default rate, as more and more students are entering income driven repayment programs, that's actually going to turn the cohort default rate into an obsolete metric, because now students who can't afford their loans are defaulting on them. But once they're in an income driven or payment program, they're no longer defaulting on their loans, their student loan payment has just been set to zero. And so pretty soon as more and more students are entering the income driven or payment programs, the cohort default rate is really going to be an obsolete metric. So, one thing that we could do is replace it or supplement it with a repayment rate, and so that would be probably the wisest course of action I think where we look at what percentage of a university programs students are actually paying down the principal on their loans. Mr. Cawthorn. Well Dr. Gillen thank you very much for your time, and to all the witnesses thank you and with that Chairman Scott, Mr. Chairman I would yield the rest of my time to Ranking Member Foxx if she would so like to use it. Ms. Foxx. I thank the Gentleman for yielding. Since we're on the gainful employment and cohort default rate, I want to point out that there's an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that pointed out that there were failing programs in the theater arts program at Harvard University, a music performance program at Johns Hopkins, and a music technology program at the University of Southern California. I think it's important that we point that out. Ms. Emrey- Arras. First to clarify, just because an insider was involved in the transaction does not mean that they are illegal when a for-profit converts to a not for profit, isn't that correct? Ms. Emrey-Arras. That is correct. Ms. Foxx. OK. So, when the GAO noted that the Department had strengthened its review of the process, that came about during the Trump administration is that correct? Ms. Emrey-Arras. The department took several steps over time beginning in September 2016, though in 2018 the department did create a centralized team where they brought in experts with contracting knowledge, and finance knowledge to really look at these together, and that was in 2018. Mrs. Foxx. Right. So, they strengthened it during the Trump administration beginning in September 2016 as you said, right? Just before the election. Ms. Emrey-Arras. Right. Mrs. Foxx. So, I think it's important that we ascertain that when that strengthening came in was under a republican administration. Again, I think Republicans--the point we want to make over and over again, is that Republicans want accountability from all institutions, all institutions for students. Thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. The Gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath. Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm really excited to be here today and thank you to all of our witnesses for their great testimony. And I would just say in my own district we saw first-hand what happens when an institution of higher education attempts to evade accountability. In 2019 Argosy University in my district closed its doors after months of misleading students on its accreditation status in an attempt to convert to non-profit status through its sale to Dream Center Holdings. In the end Argosy University ripped off thousands of students at campuses across the country, including one in my district, leaving them with untransferable credits, huge amounts of student debt, and degrees that just really aren't worth anything. And it's our duty as legislators to protect the success of our students as they pursue higher education and hold all institutions accountable, and that's why I am very proud to be introducing the For-Profit College Conversion Accountability Act, or we'll call it the FCCAA with my colleague representatives, Sara Jacobs and Kathy Manning. FCCAA would establish explicit criteria requiring the conversion to be made public, with proper advance notice and prohibit the institution from marketing itself as a nonprofit until the conversion has actually been given the final approval by the department. Additionally, the bill would establish an office within the Department of Education to determine the eligibility of for- profit IHE's and monitor the conversion process. You know our students deserve better, and it's our duty as legislators to ensure that institutions are adhering to high standards. Ms. Cao my questions are you for today. In a recent piece you wrote that and I'm quoting, ``To increase rigor of the Department of Education's review, reviews of college conversions needs to continue in the Biden administration and should be applied to conversions that were approved earlier.'' What opportunities are there for the department and this committee to revisit conversions that were previously approved? Ms. Cao. Thank you for the question and for recognizing the painful experience of Argosy students. And so, I want to talk about three opportunities that the Biden Administration has to revisit some of the errors that were made in the past, and that we're played out in the GAO report. The first is that in the case of the Dream Center the Department of Education made an effort to retroactively grant non-profit status to Argosy and the other Dream Center schools. And I would say the Department of Education can retroactively grant non-profit status in order to help institutions cheat students, then they sure should be able to retroactively remove non-profit status to stop that cheating. And I think that that is an important authority to explore. Second, this has come up previously, but any time an institution of higher education seeks a conversion in a non- profit status, or a change in control, they go through a review that leaves them in a status known as provisional certification. When you change status, you change control. Your eligibility to receive Title IV ends at that moment at the change of control, and you have to prove that you deserve Title IV funding all over again. That gives the Department of Education a unique opportunity to continue to monitor and oversee whether these conversions are truly serving students. And finally, I want to just go back. We've been talking about conversions between non-profit and for-profit status, but really there are a series of requirements that Congress has imposed that all institutions must meet in order to be eligible for Title IV revenues. And some of the behaviors in these conversions, things like paying recruiters or recruitment entities a bounty for each student that they enroll, would violate the basic requirements for Title IV eligibility for all institutions, and the department has to address that as well. Ms. McBath. Well, thank you so much. And you previously wrote that our institution chain of for-profit schools had been sold to Dream Center Education Holding, a non-profit organization. It cooked the books and diverted stipends intended to cover student's groceries and living expenses. And I'm aware that the Department of Education sat on the Art Institute's application, and that of Argosy International, Argosy University for non-profit status until it was too late. Do you have views about whether the Department's slow-moving response constituted a failure in oversight, and what do you think has been done differently, or could be done differently? Ms. Cao. The department failed students by not acting to protect them. And they failed taxpayers by allowing millions to go out the door to an unscrupulous and irresponsible institution that did not meet basic statutory requirements to receive Title IV dollars. Ms. McBath. OK. And thank you so much. I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Scott. Thank you. The Gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Steel. Ms. Steel. Thank you, Chairman. I came from California, not Illinois. Chairman Scott. I'm sorry. Ms. Steel. Thank you, thank you Chairman and thank you Ranking Member-- Chairman Scott. I'm sorry the Gentlelady from California Ms. Steel, I'm sorry. Ms. Steel. And thank you for all the witnesses today. I really appreciate it. I think we can all agree that we must protect the use of taxpayer funds. We also agree the cost of college has grown out of control. We need to make sure the students who attend any college will graduate, and graduate with the skills they need to get a job. I believe we must have accountability, but also encourage flexibility to help all Americans find the higher education option that fits them the best. Colleges and universities have many reasons to choose whether they form as for-profit or non- profit organizations. One of the reasons for conversion is the heavy, and sometimes unfair, burden places on for-profit institutions. Having said that, Dr. Gillen in your opinion if you run a for- profit college, wouldn't you want to change from a for-profit to non-profit to level the playing field since there are many burdens on for-profit colleges? Mr. Gillen. Yes. So, I think that's a completely valid point. There are a number of reasons that universities would want to convert from for-profit to non-profit. And so, some of them that were highlighted in the GAO report were there was a State financial aid program that provided grants to students. The students at for-profit colleges were not eligible for this grant. And so, by converting to a non-profit that college's students would now be eligible for this financial aid program. And so, there's all sorts of issues like that where for-profits might benefit from converting into a non-profit. Ms. Steel. And testing's done too. Mr. Gillen. Yes, yes. Ms. Steel. For those schools. So, students across the board seem to be left with excessive student debt these days. Can you highlight some of the ways a successful for-profit college can help students who want and demand jobs? Mr. Gillen. Yes absolutely. So excessive student debt is a huge issue, and it's gotten a lot of national attention, appropriately so. The contribution I would like to see is the conversation less focused on the tax status of the degree granting institution, and more focused on the students themselves. And so last year we actually ran an analysis that basically subjected all programs to gainful employment. So, under the initial gainful employment regulations no degree program at a public or a private non-profit was subject to gainful employment, so only certificate programs were. And so, which is nonsensical right, like the MBA program at Wharton was not considered a vocational program, but a nursing program at the University of Phoenix was. It was just a bizarre way to define which programs are vocational and which aren't. But so, we went back, and we analyzed, OK what if you applied gainful employment to everybody? And so, we used the new college scorecard data to do that. What we found were that of the total students who are attending programs that would have failed gainful employment, 28 percent of them attended for-profit universities, which means that 72 percent of them were attending private non-profit or public universities. And so, the notion that excessive student loan debt is a problem that's restricted to the for-profit sector, I think is completely false because the vast majority of students who had excessive student loan debt, as determined by a test like gainful employment, are going to be at public and private non- profit universities, if for no other reason than for the fact that so many more students are at those institutions. Ms. Steel. Thank you very much Dr. Gillen. I yield my remaining time to Ranking Member Dr. Foxx. Ms. Foxx. I thank you Ms. Steel. Mr. Gillen we've talked a great deal again about what we want to see and the bias that exists against for-profits. As we've talked about this you've talked about program accountability, and I'd like you to mention that a little bit more because I am very concerned about the possibility of our going to individual students, and if you wouldn't mind mention how much information we can get from program accountability. Mr. Gillen. Yes absolutely. So, the most exciting kind of accountability potential that I've seen in my entire career has been the college scorecard data on program level earnings. So, they define the program as a university, a degree level, you know, associates, bachelor's, master's, and a field of studies. So, an academic field. And so, this is completely revolutionary to what we can do with accountability in higher education. Because up until now we've only really applied accountability at the entire university. And so, we've looked at things like the cohort default rate, which are calculated at the entire university level. With this program level accountability, we can really analyze specific programs, and you mentioned earlier in the comment there was a program at Harvard, it was a certificate program, so it was actually subject to the--that actually failed. Nobody knew. Nobody knew that this program was leaving its students with excessive student loan debt because nobody had bothered to look at the program level outcomes. And so, there's going to be a million examples like that. Where now that we have this program data, we can do a much better job of saying OK, you know the institution is doing great, but these four programs at this institution aren't. Or you know, this university is really struggling, but these handful of programs are having really good outcomes for the students. And so, this program level of protecting is-- Ms. Foxx. I think Mr. Gillen my time is up. I need to stop you thank you. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Next is the Gentlelady from Connecticut Ms. Hayes. Ms. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing today. When predatory for-profit schools don't follow the rules, the victims are often our most vulnerable students, first generation students, students of color, low-income students, working parents. When for-profits shutter their doors, students are left with tremendous debt and no credentials. Last Congress I introduced a bill that would restore Pell grant eligibility to students deceived by Corinthian College and ITT Technical Institute. I'm so proud that that legislation was signed into law in December. But we still have a long way to go. Ms. Cao my questions are for you, and I would ask you just I want to follow the rules to be mindful of the time on the clock. What role should transparency and consumer awareness play in addressing the risk posed by for-profit college conversions, and should more information be given to students about those conversions? Ms. Cao. Thanks. I would say transparency is necessary but not sufficient. And one aspect of transparency in the context of these conversions is making sure that institutions are not pulling the wool over students' eyes by claiming non-profit status when they're actually operating as for-profit institutions. I would also say that while choice is wonderful, and I support students having options of the type of college they go to, nobody wants students to be steered toward a choice that is going to harm them more than it will help them. And you know, you can look at the grocery store. You can look at the auto dealership, all of these contexts where we have consumer choice, there is a regulator making sure that you don't buy spoiled milk. There is a regulatory making sure that you don't buy a car that's going to explode when you drive it off the lot. Ms. Hayes. Thank you. That leads me to my next question for Director Emrey-Arras. Are colleges allowed to advertise as non- profit colleges while they're awaiting the Department of Education to approve their conversion applications? And what did you find when you looked at the advertisements of colleges in pending status? Ms. Emrey-Arras. That's a great question. When we started our study education didn't have any formal rules on this issue and during the course of our work, they did decide to formally prohibit this practice, and they have developed instructions to schools letting them know that this is not allowable, and they have begun to distribute those instructions. And this is particularly important because we found that schools were doing that kind of advertising, so they were waiting for approval, did not have it yet, but yet were putting out in advertisements that they were non-profit institutions suggesting that they had been approved by the Department of Education to be non-profit colleges. That was not true. We saw that for all nine schools that were pending, and we also looked retroactively at some of the schools that had been denied. So, the two schools that were denied, we found had also previously advertised as non-profits. So, we think it's great that the department has formally said that this is not acceptable, and we think it's really important that they're getting the word out. Ms. Hayes. You've actually answered my next three questions. I'll wrap it up by saying you know what steps the U.S. Department of Education is taking to stop these deceptive advertisements. Ms. Emrey-Arras. Yes. So, they're actually putting it in their letters to schools that are awaiting decisions. They haven't notified each and every school yet, but they are in the process of doing so, so they're going to organizing their communications to make sure that they consistently message along those lines, and we think that's great. Because again, at the beginning of this study it was really quiet on this front, and a lot was going on that was against education's wishes. Education officials have expressed concerns about this, but there is nothing formally prohibiting it. Now the department has formally prohibited it and is telling schools that they're not allowed to do that. Ms. Hayes. Thank you. I really appreciate that and for your expertise on this issue at today's hearing because as legislators we are tasked with making sure that we are protecting the rights of all of our constituents no matter how big or small the problem is, and it doesn't matter--one student affected is one too many, so I'm very happy that you've taken the time to come before this committee to share your concerns so that we can make sure that we are protecting every student that seeks a higher education in this country,. With that Mr. Chair I yield back with 10 seconds to spare. Chairman Scott. Well, thank you very much. And next the Gentleman from New York Mr. Bowman. Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. My first question is to Director Emrey-Arras. You note in your testimony that the IRS did not systematically collect the information that can help identify insiders involved in conversion transactions. When the IRS is evaluating an application for tax-exempt status involving insider transactions, what is it supposed to be looking for? Ms. Emrey-Arras. It's supposed to be making sure that those transactions are a fair market value, so that no one is pocketing anything extra above what the price should be. So that's what they need to be doing, and they don't always have the information that they need to make that decision. Mr. Bowman. How is fair market value determined? Ms. Emrey-Arras. It's determined by looking at what the price would be for people who have how would I say this, if you have unrelated people who are looking at a good, it's their interest in what they think a fair price should be. It's a price that would be comparable with other prices on the market. It's not a price that's inflated to benefit an insider. Mr. Bowman. Got it. And what would be the grounds for the IRS denying an application? Ms. Emrey-Arras. If they did find improper benefits. So, for example if they found that the price of the college was inflated beyond market value to benefit an insider, they could deny the application for tax exempt status. Similarly, if they're finding other kinds of arrangements that look like there's improper benefit, so if you have service contracts, or leases, or what have you where it looks like individuals are improperly benefiting, and they're being paid above market rates to the detriment of the tax-exempt institution, that could be cause for denying the application. Mr. Bowman. I thought so. Thank you so much. My next question is to Ms. Cao. You've written about the Department of Education's process for approving for-profit conversions. Why can't the Department of Education just rely on the IRS determination? Ms. Cao. Thanks for the question. So, we've heard for- profit schools complain that they're being unfairly regulated based on tax status, and I just want to clear up the record. The Department of Education does not regulate entities based on tax status. They regulate entities based on the risks that are posed to students and taxpayers based on whether an institution is a revenue extracting institution, or a revenue reinvesting institution. So, the department looks at tax status because if the IRS has already determined that an institution is extracting revenue for insiders, that means the Department of Education doesn't need to retread that ground. That institution has disqualified itself. However, the Department of Education's review goes one step beyond that. I had mentioned that it has a three-part test, an IRS review is just one prong of that three-part test. The Department of Education really owes a greater duty to students to protect them from institutions that are going to extract the revenue instead of investing it in their education. And you know I think one of the reasons for that is if the IRS messes up it can go back and collect back taxes with interest. But if the Department of Education messes up, students don't have that chance to take back those years of their lives, or in most cases take back the Pell grants, the loan debt, and the military benefits they've used in an institution that lied to them. Mr. Bowman. Thank you. And what resources would the Department of Education need to reliably make these determinations moving forward? Ms. Cao. I think that the resources are a part of the problem, and the GAO report identified some of the ways in which the Department of Education is starting to organize its resources to better address the issue of these conversions. But I think the department as well needs to use all the tools in its toolbox, including things like personal liability when there are insiders that are extracting profit to the point where they're ripping off students and driving institutions into bankruptcy. I think the department also needs to focus a little bit on the fiduciary duty that institutions owe to the Department of Education, and to taxpayers. When they sign that agreement to take Title IV dollars from taxpayers, they're agreeing to be fiduciaries to the Department of Education, and that aligns well when non-profit board of directors are already fiduciaries to educational purposes. But for-profit directors are fiduciaries to their investors, and there's a misalignment there. Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much and I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. The Gentlemen from Wisconsin Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Thanks to the witnesses. You know I think I've been on this committee when I first got to Congress and I'm glad to be back on the committee, but you know there's plenty of bad behavior by many of the for-profit entities. I think that's pretty undeniable, but I also think we have to recognize that some of these entities, especially the ones converting to non-profits, some are doing the right thing, and some are very much not doing the right thing. Grand Canyon, Purdue, Kaplan, there's a couple great examples of companies that I think aren't primarily educational institutions, they're profit-making entities period. I think it's hard to argue. Other than that, and I guess I'm personally less concerned about leadership in a conversion because I think many times some of the folks in leadership have the expertise. I would expect that they would be there for continuity, especially in a family held business. You're going to expect to see that. But what I am concerned about is where the abuses occur, where we see this split of having a non-profit and a profit entity especially, seems to be really problematic. Concerned on also performance. And let me ask a few questions if I could of Ms. Emrey-Arras, since you did the report to the GAO. Did you look at all the performance as you looked at this? So, what the completion rates are for students? Ms. Emrey-Arras. We did not. Mr. Pocan. Are you intending to do an additional study on that? Ms. Emrey-Arras. We're open to new requests from the committee if the committee is interested in that. Mr. Pocan. Yes, I think it would be interesting right, because that's a real key metric for us to know how things are performing. How about this question that I've learned of the profit, so an entity has a profit in a non-profit entity operating? I don't quite fully understand how that's not also known as a scam, and then there's other entities again who are truly non-profit, and now they're all getting painted with one brush. And I worry about we're hurting those that are trying their very best to do the right thing in the conversion, versus the ones that are clearly trying to get around the system. Did you look specifically at some of the abuses between the profit and non-profit dual entities moving forward? Ms. Emrey-Arras. We looked at some of the financial statements and found issues that raised red flags for us. So, if you're looking at situations where you know a president of a non-profit college is also engaging in lots of service contracts with the for-profit college which the president also owns, that can raise issues. Leasing arrangements, other situations like that can raise red flags about whether or not those are really you know good arrangements in the best interest of the non-profit college, or whether they're there to improperly benefit insiders. Mr. Pocan. So does anyone look at that for example, the fair market value. If someone is leasing, I fully understand if a family had it and they had property and now they're leasing it back. There's fair market value or there's not. Does anyone actually look at that through the process, either education or IRS? Ms. Emrey-Arras. Well, the IRS is supposed to scrutinize transactions involving insiders for just that reason, to determine if there is improper benefit. And if there is, that can be grounds for denying an application for tax exempt status. Similarly, the Department of Education is looking at that issue now. Previously they didn't, as Dr. Fox had raised the issue about you know previous years, we found that the Department of Education has not always done this. We looked at some cases prior to 2016 and found red flags, but officials there weren't looking for them. So yes, it's something that they are looking at now, and we think that that's a good thing. Mr. Pocan. And the IRS doesn't do that aggressively, would that be fair to say? Ms. Emrey-Arras. That was our interpretation when they didn't have the sales price and approved the transactions, nonetheless. Mr. Pocan. So, it sounds like from the conversation, and I hope I'm paraphrasing this correctly, that it sounds like more power should really go to the Department of Education who actually understands educational outcomes rather than the IRS because this is not really about a financial transaction per se in the long-run, it's about educating students. Were there specific recommendations that you've made on how we can beef up what Department of Education does versus IRS? Ms. Emrey-Arras. So, we made recommendations to both Federal agencies. Our focus was really on a Federal oversight, so we made recommendations to the IRS on what the IRS could do better to shore up that oversight, and then we also made a recommendation to the Department of Education on what it could do better. And we thought that the area of growth for the Department of Education was really in that monitoring after school is approved to make sure that they're really operating as a non- profit and that there's no improper benefit going on. Mr. Pocan. Great. I yield back Mr. Chairman thank you. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Let's see, the Gentleman from Kentucky Mr. Yarmouth. Mr. Yarmouth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank all the witnesses. We've been going on 4 hours now, and I appreciate all of your responses. I know at the beginning the Ranking Member questioned whether we should be having this hearing, and I will say that it seems to me this has been a very useful and thoughtful discussion with a lot of good questions from all sides. And I've learned a lot myself, and had some questions raised as well. But it seems to me for instance, I think it was the GAO report that had said in 2018 and in 2019 the for-profit conversions received almost 2 billion dollars-worth of Federal aid. So, there's a significant amount of money at stake here, taxpayer money, so I think this is a very important discussion. Thinking about I want to go back to what Mr. Grothman discussed, and clearly, I think there are good reasons for a for-profit to merge to a non-profit. I don't think there's any debate about that. But there are also some pretty nefarious ones, so it seems to me that in certain situations yes, we might have a principle who's built a for-profit institution, and then his kids or friends don't want to carry it on, so he or she would want to convert it for a perfect legitimate reason. But it also seems there could be situations where he's just trying to cash out, and essentially lay off the risk, get rid of the risk and put it all in non-profit and cash out when you can. And whether or not they're improper benefits, which in these situations seem more like self-dealing, at least some of the examples we have. Improper benefits seems like a euphemism for self-dealing here. But I want to turn to Professor Galle. In your testimony you talked about how private foundations actually prohibit many of these insider transactions because the assumption is that any insider transaction is going to be inherently unfair to the non-profit and that it would be very difficult to police. It seems to me there has been some confusion, at least in my mind, during some of the testimony as to what is prohibited now, what is not prohibited now. So, my question to you Professor Galle is all right, are those restrictions on private foundations, would some of those be useful when we're talking about other non-profits, especially non-profit educational institutions? Mr. Galle. Thank you, Congressman. I do think they would be useful, or something like them. So private foundations are charities that get their support from just a few people, and they're not schools typically. And so, the assumption is there aren't a lot of eyes on those transactions. And so, it's difficult to be sure that they're fair to the charity. And the situations that we've heard about, and we read about in the GAO report, are situations where it's hard to believe that these transactions could possibly be fair to the charity or to the students who believed that they're getting an education at a real non-profit school. And so, I think that both Ed and the IRS should approach a deal between a charity that was founded by the same person who's lending it money with some real suspicion. And as I discussed before, this is an excellent way for the seller to make the school a prisoner of their debts, or as you said, to cash out and eliminate their risk. So, I think being skeptical at least of these transactions is appropriate here. Mr. Yarmouth. Well, I have no other questions. I want to thank the witnesses again, and again Mr. Chairman thank you for holding the hearing. I've learned a lot and I think it's been very useful. I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. I don't see anyone else seeking recognition, so I'll recognize myself for 5 minutes. Professor Galle in your research you said the Grand Canyon University pays 95 percent of its revenues to its former owner through loan payments and servicing contracts, and therefore should not have been granted IRS tax exempt status. Is there reason for there to be a different standard, or is there a different standard between the IRS non-profit status, and Department of Education non-profit status? Mr. Galle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That 95 percent finding was from GAO, and I relied on their findings. So, the IRS applies a different standard because their mission is not to protect students. The IRS was very reluctant to say that an organization wasn't charitable and didn't get tax exemption. Because if they said that the charity would close its doors. And Congress responded to that by creating a new regime in the late 90's called the Intermediate Sanctions Regime. And that regime tells the IRS don't try to revoke organization's tax-exempt status. Don't decide whether they're really charitable or not. Your main job is just to assign penalty taxes on people who extract extra benefits. And so, the IRS isn't looking at these transactions to determine whether the organization is really non-profit and really has an incentive to maximize students over revenues. And so those fundamentally are different standards. There are doctrines that IRS could conceivably employ if it were to look very closely at these transactions, and I think you know, a transaction like Grand Canyon is so blatant that it should fail even in the scrutiny of the IRS. Chairman Scott. Doesn't the Department of Education have a different standard? Mr. Galle. It should. And the Department of Education 90/10 and gainful employment are there to make sure that organizations with incentives to line their own pockets are subject to higher standards and more accountability. And that's not something that IRS does. So, IRS isn't looking out for those interests. Ed needs to establish its own standards, identify which schools are the ones that should be subject to closer scrutiny and make sure those schools get the scrutiny. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Dr. Emrey-Arras we've talked about inflated purchase prices. What are some of the other ways you can benefit from an ongoing transaction--ongoing insiders can benefit from the actual transaction, and how can they benefit in getting money after the transaction? Ms. Emrey-Arras. Right. So, there are two opportunities for abuse. So, there's an initial opportunity with the purchase price of the college where insiders could intervene and rig it so that they get more money than the fair value of the college, and then they pocket the difference. The other opportunity is subsequent to the purchase of the college. They could engage in extensive service contracts with the college, or lease agreements. You might have the former for-profit owners like leasing you know land or facilities to the now non-profit college. And the terms of those leases or contracts may not be favorable to the non-profit college, and they may not be fair market value. They may also improperly benefit the insiders. Chairman Scott. Thank you. Ms. Cao we've heard about these high salaries. What's the difference between a high salary for a college president and insiders taking money out of the operation? Ms. Cao. Sure. So, one difference is whether the college has gone through an independent review and hiring process, or whether an insider is extracting revenue for his personal benefit from non-profit that he essentially controls. And I think the later situation is what we've seen at some of these for-profit conversions. You have shareholders who are benefiting from a conversion to non-profit status, and any time that shareholders are promised a pay day, from non-profit status, I think that tells you all you need to know. Chairman Scott. Well in the case of those high salaries, if the president essentially because he's an insider is setting his own salary rather than an independent board, is that a different situation? Ms. Cao. Yes. The president is not just setting his own salary. He's guiding the administration of the school to maximize the revenue that he's taking out and paying himself with or keeping his equity. And that means steering the school toward higher tuition prices and lower investments in a student's education. Chairman Scott. Well, thank you. And I want to thank all of the witnesses for being with us today. I want to remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice, materials for submission for the hearing record must be submitted to the Committee Clerk within 14 days following the last day of the hearing. So that's by close of business May 4, preferable in Microsoft Word format. The material submitted must address the subject matter of the hearing. Only a Member of Congress, or excuse me, a Member of the committee, or the invited witnesses may submit materials for inclusion in the record. Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents longer than 50 pages can be incorporated into the record by way of an internet link which you can provide to the Committee Clerk within the required timeframe, but please recognize that in the future that link may no longer work. Pursuant to House rules and regulations, items for the record should be submitted to the clerk electronically by emailing submissions to [email protected]. Member's offices are encouraged to submit materials to the inbox before the hearing or during the hearing at the time the member makes such a request. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for your participation. Members of the committee may have some additional questions for you, and we would ask you to respond to those in writing. The hearing record will be held open for 14 days in order to receive the responses. I remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice, witness questions for the hearing must be submitted to the Majority Committee Staff within 7 days and questions must be related to the subject matter of the hearing. I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for any closing statement that she might want to make, Dr. Foxx. Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. We covered a lot of ground today and there's several things worth noting. Republicans oppose all fraud and abuse no matter the tax status of the perpetrator. Republicans care about all students no matter what institution they attend. Republicans support reforming the HEA to make sure all students attending institutions of post- secondary education give them the chance to succeed in the workforce. In contrast, democrats want to talk about a college's legal and financial structure, not about students. Democrats are obsessed with a perfectly legal financial arrangement that 0.1 percent of for-profit colleges pursued per year in the past 10 years. Democrats want to shut down small business in the middle of the pandemic to serve students. Democrats are uncomfortable with the notion that not all public and non-profit colleges act in their student's or their communities' best interest, and here Mr. Chairman I'd like to insert a Time article related to this issue. There are real issues American students and families are grappling with. Outstanding student loan debt has never been higher because college tuition rates are skyrocketing. Students are struggling to find a good job after graduation because their college is not preparing them for career success. On-time college completion rates are abysmal. Colleges are trampling on students first amendment rights. China is stealing intellectual property and infiltrating college campuses. Families don't care about who runs a college, they do care about their ability to succeed. We could have had a hearing today on what actually matters to our constituents, and I'm disappointed on their behalf that my democrat colleagues don't seem to care about them. I call upon my colleagues to pursue a bi-partisan path forward to reforming the Higher Education Act. I yield back. Chairman Scott. Thank you. I want to thank our witnesses again for being with us today and both your testimony and our discussion have shed light on the urgent need to prevent for- profit institutions for converting to non-profit institutions at the expense of students and taxpayers. As it's been pointed out, all are not guilty of fraud, but many are. And we've heard that the impact not just on the students but on the Federal Government could be intense. The estimate of 600 million dollars to a billion dollars in just one institution should not be ignored. We've heard that these conversions deceive the students, decrease funding for student learning. We've also heard that virtually all the fraud in the higher education sector in the borrowed defense claims occurs in the for-profits and the covert for-profits. The simple fact is that many of the most concerning conversions occur when there are insiders at both the non- profit and the for-profit institution. Common sense tells us these institutions are unable to engage in transactions with one another, instead the for-profit institution ends up profiting for the non-profit institution at the expense of students with fewer funds invested in their education. These schools cannot compete on equal terms, the true non- profits, and public institutions, and as a result they often turn to fraud like we saw in the Dream Center case, that costs the Federal Government hundreds of millions of dollars. I also want to respond to some of my colleagues decided researched which relies on data from the college scoreboard which shows the publicly available consumer information is sufficient to protect students and taxpayers. However, we know this data is not sufficient to determine a debt to earnings ratio comparable to the one used in the gainful employment rule. More importantly, we should not treat better consumer information as a replacement for strong accountability measures. It actually should go hand in hand. And finally, I want to thank my republican colleagues for raising the need to improve the cohort default rate, the CDR, the College Affordability Act, which committee approved last Congress, would have closed the CDR forbearance loophole, measured CDR's using longer timeframes, and created a loan repayment rate to supplement the CDR. Based on Mr. Gillen's testimony today this seems to be an area of bipartisan agreement, and I look forward to working with my republican colleagues to advance these important reforms. Moving forward I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come together to stand up for our Nation's children and our students and enact meaningful solutions that protect students and taxpayers against deceptive for-profit schools. If there is no further business to come before the committee without objection the committee stands adjourned. Thank you. [Additional submissions by Ranking Member Foxx follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [Additional submission by Ms. Adams follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [Questions submitted for the record and the responses by Ms. Cao follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [Questions submitted for the record and the responses by Mr. Gillen follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [Questions submitted for the record and the responses by Ms. Emrey-Arras follow:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [Whereupon, at 1:56 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [all]