    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        KEEPING THE PELL GRANT PROMISE:
                   INCREASING ENROLLMENT, SUPPORTING SUCCESS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                              HIGHER EDUCATION AND
                              WORKFORCE INVESTMENT

                                     of the

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

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 29, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-26

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Available via: edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
                                 _________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    45-175 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 DeSAULNIER, 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 McBATH, Georgia                 MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
    JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut            BURGESS OWENS, Utah
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan                 BOB GOOD, Virginia
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                LISA C. McCLAIN, 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
                                     ------

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE INVESTMENT

                    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida, Chairwoman

    MARK TAKANO, California              GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington            Ranking Member
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico   ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
    MONDAIRE JONES, New York             JIM BANKS, Indiana
    KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina     JAMES COMER, Kentucky
    JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
    MARK POCAN, Wisconsin                MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                BOB GOOD, Virginia
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
    ARIANO ESPAILLAT, New York           DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
    RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona            VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
    JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
    ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia    (ex officio)
      (ex officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on July 29, 2021....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Chairman, Committee on
          Education and Labor........................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Murphy, Hon. Gregory F., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
          Higher
          Education and Workforce Investment.........................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................     8

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Jones, Robert J., Ph.D., Chancellor, University of Illinois
          Urbana-
          Champaign..................................................    16
            Prepared statement of....................................    18
        Ortagus, Justin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Higher
          Education Administration and Policy, Director of the
          Institute of Higher Education,
          University of Florida......................................     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    11
        Poliakoff, Michael B., Ph.D., President, American Council of
          Trustees and Alumni........................................    23
            Prepared statement of....................................    25
        Suriel, Darleny, Student, City College of New York...........    27
            Prepared statement of....................................    30

    Additional Submissions:
        Chairman Scott:
            ``Higher Education School Finance Inequity and Inadequacy
              in
              Virginia,'' ERN, July 2021.............................    61
            ``How to make good colleges want low-income students,''
              The Hill, July 14, 2021................................    88
        Morelle, Hon. Joseph, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New York:
            Prepared statement of the Association on Higher Education
              and
              Disability (AHEAD).....................................    90

                        KEEPING THE PELL GRANT PROMISE:
                             INCREASING ENROLLMENT,
                               SUPPORTING SUCCESS

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, July 29, 2021

                      House of Representatives,
                          Subcommittee on Education and
                                  Workforce Investment,
                              Committee on Education and Labor,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. via
    Zoom, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott presiding.
        Present: Representatives Scott, Takano, Leger Fernandez,
    Jones, Manning, Bowman, Pocan, Castro, Sherrill, Espaillat,
    Courtney, Bonamici, Murphy, Grothman, Stefanik, Banks, Miller-
    Meeks, Good, McClain, Harshbarger, Spartz and Foxx (ex
    officio).
        Also present: Representative Morelle.
        Staff present: Katie Berger, Professional Staff; Jessica
    Bowen, Professional Staff; Christian Haines, General Counsel;
    Rasheedah Hasan, Chief Clerk; Sheila Havenner, Director of
    Information Technology; Ariel Jona, Policy Associate; Andre
    Lindsay, Policy Associate; Mariah Mowbray, Clerk/Special
    Assistant to the Staff Director; Kayla Pennebecker, Staff
    Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Banyon Vassar,
    Deputy Director of Information Technology; Claire Viall,
    Professional Staff; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director;
    Michael Davis, Minority Operations Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones,
    Minority Director of Education and Human Resources Policy;
    Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Operations; Eli Mitchell,
    Minority Legislative Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority
    Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy; and Brad
    Thomas, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor.
        Mr. Scott. We're ready to begin. The recording studio has
    asked for a countdown before we begin. Five, four, three, two,
    one. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Higher Education and
    Workforce Investment will come to order. Welcome everyone. We
    know that Chair Wilson is unexpectedly unable to participate,
    so I will be Chairing the Subcommittee this morning.
        I note for the Subcommittee that pursuant to Rule 7 of the
    Rules of the Committee that the gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Morelle, will participate in today's hearing with the
    understanding that his questions will come only after all
    Members of the Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who are
    present, have had an opportunity to question the witnesses.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
    ``Keeping the Pell Grant Promise: Increasing Enrollment,
    Supporting Success.'' 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 wish
    to seek recognition. I'll also ask Members to please identify
    themselves before they speak. Members should keep their cameras
    on while in the proceeding.
        Members will be considered present in the proceeding when
    they are visible on camera, and they will be considered not
    present when they are not visible on camera. The only exception
    to this is if they are experiencing technical difficulties and
    inform the Committee staff of such difficulty.
        If any Member is experiencing a technical difficulty during
    the hearing, you should stay connected on the platform, make
    sure you are muted, and use your phone to immediately call the
    Committee's IT director whose number was provided in advance.
        Should the Chair experience technical difficulty or need to
    step away to vote on the floor, a majority Member is hereby
    authorized to assume the gavel in the Chair's absence. This is
    an entirely remote hearing and as such the Committee's hearing
    room is officially closed.
        Members who choose to sit with their individual devices in
    the Committee room must wear headphones to avoid feedback,
    echoes and distortion resulting from one or more persons on the
    platform sitting in the same room. Members are also expected to
    adhere to social distancing and safe healthcare guidelines,
    including the use of masks, hand sanitizer and wiping down
    their areas before and after their presence in the hearing
    room.
        In order to ensure that the Committee's five-minute rule is
    adhered to the staff is keeping track of a timer, which will
    appear in its own thumbnail picture named timer, excuse me
    001_timer. There will be no official one-minute warning, but I
    believe the color of the background may change at one minute to
    give an indication that time is coming to an end.
        The field timer will show a blinking light 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, so to get to the witnesses first, that process will be
    omitted.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c) opening statements are
    limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member. This allows us to
    hear from the witnesses sooner and provides all Members with
    adequate time to ask questions. I will now recognize myself for
    the purpose of making an opening statement.
        Today we're meeting to examine trends related to Pell
    eligible students' access to public four-year institutions. The
    State and institutional roles in helping students succeed, and
    how Federal legislation could help. Each person in this country
    deserves access to an affordable high-quality, higher
    education, and as we have consistently established, a high-
    quality post-secondary degree remains the surest pathway to
    financial security and a rewarding career.
        In fact, that access is what President Johnson said when he
    signed the Higher Education Act in 1965. He said that the law
    means that a high school senior anywhere in this great land of
    ours can apply to any college or university in any of the 50
    states and not be turned away because the family is poor.
        And that's the way it was back then when the Pell Grant was
    covering about 80 percent of the cost of college education. Now
    it's covering about 30 percent of the costs of a higher
    education, and that's one of the reasons we have the problems
    we have now. But for decades Pell Grants and public
    institutions have been critical to helping students from low-
    income backgrounds enroll in college and reach their full
    potential.
        However, growing research reveals that there are still too
    many public institutions with student bodies that do not
    reflect the communities they're established to serve. Even
    institutions that do enroll Pell eligible students may not
    provide the support the students need to complete their
    degrees.
        According to research from 2018, only a quarter of the
    institutions with higher-than-average Pell enrollment actually
    graduated more than half the students. Unfortunately, the
    campus closures, the inequitable access to remote learning
    during the pandemic created new barriers to low-income
    students.
        In fact the Brookings Institute found that ``Students from
    households making less than $75,000.00 per year were almost
    twice as likely to forego college during the pandemic.'' During
    the last year Congress has taken decisive action to help
    institutions and students weather the pandemic.
        We passed three COVID relief packages providing more than
    75 billion dollars to help institutions stay afloat, reopen
    their campuses safely, and address the urgent needs of
    students. We also addressed Pell Grant award amounts for
    millions of current recipients, and expanded eligibility for
    hundreds of thousands of others, including incarcerated
    students. And while these packages have saved our higher
    education system from financial collapse, we know that we must
    address the root causes behind persistent various and post-
    secondary degrees--namely chronic State disinvestment in higher
    education.
        Since the Great Recession this widespread trend has led
    some public institutions to rely on revenue from wealthy out-
    of-State students, while also raising tuition and further
    pushing costs onto students and families. State disinvestment
    has also left many institutions unable to provide the services
    and resources its students need to complete their education.
        Today our expert witnesses will help us examine bold,
    legislative initiatives to lower the costs of college, and
    support student success. We'll discuss the Pell Grant
    Preservation and Expansion Act, a bill that Congressman Pocan
    and I introduced, which will double the maximum Pell Grant
    award, and tie future increases to inflation.
        Over the years the purchasing power of the Pell Grant has
    dramatically declined, covering the smallest share of college
    costs in four decades. Passing this long-standing higher
    education priority, will not only boost Pell Grant awards, but
    also expand eligibility for these critical resources.
        We must also pursue investments in higher education like
    those included in the American Families Plan. The President's
    proposal calls for investing in stronger Pell Grant awards,
    tuition free community college, reduced costs at underresourced
    institutions, including HBCUs and other MSIs, and dedicated
    funding to ensure institutions can help students complete their
    degrees.
        As we will discuss today, these steps are critical to
    building back a better higher education system for our Nation's
    students. If we fail to make these investments, we will further
    contribute to our higher education system in which only wealthy
    Americans can afford to go to college.
        However, if we act now, we can make significant progress
    toward ensuring that all students have access to the life
    changing benefits that come with a quality, college education.
    I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today, and now
    recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from
    North Carolina, Dr. Murphy for the purpose of making an opening
    statement.
        [The statement of Chairman Scott follows:]

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

        Today we are meeting to examine trends related to Pell eligible
    students' access to public four-year institutions, the State and
    institutional roles in helping students succeed, and how Federal
    legislation could help.
        Each person in this country deserves access to an affordable, high-
    quality higher education. As we have consistently established, a high-
    quality postsecondary degree remains the surest pathway to financial
    security and a rewarding career.
        In fact, that access is what President Johnson said when he signed
    the Higher Education Act in 1965. He said that the law means that: ``a
    high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours, can apply to
    any college or any university, in any of the 50 states, and not be
    turned away because [their] family is poor.''
        That's the way it was back then when the Pell Grant was covering
    about 80 percent of the cost of college education and now it's covering
    about 30 percent of the costs of higher education, and that's one of
    the reasons we have the problems we have now.
        For decades, Pell Grants and public institutions have been critical
    to helping students from low-income backgrounds enroll in college and
    reach their full potential.
        However, growing research reveals that there are still too many
    public institutions with student bodies that do not reflect the
    communities they were established to serve.
        Even institutions that do enroll Pell-eligible students may not
    provide the support students need to complete their degrees. According
    to research from 2018, only a quarter of institutions with higher-than-
    average Pell enrollment actually graduated more than half of these
    students.
        Unfortunately, the campus closures and inequitable access to remote
    learning during the pandemic created new barriers for low-income
    students. In fact, the Brookings Institute found that ``students from
    households making less than $75,000 per year were almost twice as
    likely to forego college'' during the pandemic.
        Over the last year, Congress has taken decisive action to help
    institutions and students weather the pandemic. We passed three COVID
    relief packages, providing more than
        $75 billion to help institutions stay afloat, reopen their campuses
    safely, and address the urgent needs of students.
        We also increased Pell Grant award amounts for millions of current
    recipients and expanded eligibility for hundreds of thousands of
    students, including incarcerated students.
        While these packages may have saved our higher education system
    from financial collapse, we know that we must address the root causes
    behind persistent barriers to postsecondary degrees-namely chronic
    State disinvestment in higher education.
        Since the Great Recession, this widespread trend has led some
    public institutions to rely on revenue from wealthy, out-of-State
    students while also raising tuition and further pushing costs onto
    students and families. State disinvestment has also left many
    institutions unable to provide the services and resources that students
    need to complete their education.
        Today, our expert witnesses will help us examine bold legislative
    solutions to lower the cost of college and support student success.
        We will discuss the Pell Grant Preservation and Expansion Act, a
    bill that Congressman Pocan and I introduced, which would double the
    maximum Pell Grant award and tie future increases to inflation. Over
    the years, the purchasing power of Pell Grants has dramatically
    declined, covering the smallest share of college costs in four decades.
    By passing this long-standing higher education priority, we would not
    only boost Pell Grant awards but also expand eligibility for these
    critical resources.
        We must also pursue investments in higher education like those
    included in the American Families Plan. The President's proposal calls
    for investing in:

       Stronger Pell Grant awards,

       Tuition-free community college,

       Reduced costs at underresourced institutions, including
            HBCUs and other MSIs, and

        Dedicated funding to ensure institutions can help students complete
    their degrees.
        As we will discuss today, these steps are critical to building back
    a better higher education system for our Nation's students. If we fail
    to make these investments, we will further contribute to a higher
    education system in which only wealthy Americans can afford to go to
    college. However, if we act now, we can make significant progress
    toward ensuring that all students have access to the lifechanging
    benefits that come with a quality college degree.
        Thank you, again, to our witnesses for being with us. I now
    recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Dr. Murphy, for his opening statement.
                                     ______

        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr., Chairman, and thank you to the
    witnesses that we have today. The Pell Grant program is the
    cornerstone of Federal student aid. Every year six and a half
    million Americans pursue secondary education with the help of
    the Pell Grant.
        Created in 1972 the Grant Program enhances the Higher
    Education Act mission--to increase access to college. Eligible
    undergraduate students, most of whom come from extremely low-
    income families, use the voucher-like grant to enroll in a
    participating program in a college or university of their
    choice.
        Historical numbers demonstrate the program's success in
    encouraging people to consider post-secondary education. In
    1972, 49 percent of high school graduates enrolled in college.
    Today that number is at 67 percent. Congress created a very
    generous Federal student aid system.
        Even adjusted for inflation, the program--that Pell Grant
    award, is six and a half thousand dollars has never been
    higher. One could reasonably assume that the college has never
    been more affordable for Pell Grant recipients. Sadly, the
    truth is that colleges and universities, not the students, are
    the major beneficiaries of the Pell Grant program.
        In a 20-year period from 1997 to 2017, the Pell Grant
    increased 44 percent in real terms, yet the maximum Pell Grant
    as a percentage of published prices, went from covering 94
    percent of tuition and fees in 2004 at four-year colleges, to
    61 percent in 2015.
        Former Secretary of Education William Bennett believed that
    the Federal Student Aid Program allows institutions of post-
    secondary education to raise their prices because the
    institutions know that widely available Federal loan and grant
    subsidies will cushion the blow of increased consumer cost.
        In fact, I have written extensively on administrative
    bloat, not only as a Member of Congress, but also as I
    witnessed the explosion of administrative bloat when I was a
    Member of the Board of Trustees at Davidson College. This may
    have just been a hypothesis when he made the claim in 1987,
    however newly available data now proves that the Bennett
    hypothesis was correct. A recent analysis by the Federal
    Reserve Bank of New York examined the link between student aid
    and college costs.
        The report found a pass-through effect of Pell Grant awards
    and published tuition prices. In other words, every dollar the
    Federal Government increased the student aid, college raises
    their prices by an incremental amount. Additional dollars
    allocated to poor students will eventually wind up captured by
    these institutions.
        Congress wanted to subsidize students but wound-up
    subsidizing institutions. Schools are taking advantage of the
    taxpayers' charity. This Committee should be concerned about
    the unintentional consequences of a well-intentioned student
    aid policy--republicans and democrats goal to make college more
    affordable for all families has led to skyrocketing costs.
        We cannot afford to perpetuate a system trapped in a
    vicious Bennett hypothesis cycle. There is no question that the
    promise of higher education is broken. Eventually, colleges and
    universities must be held accountable for their actions and
    justify their outrageous prices.
        Congress must recalibrate the Federal Student Aid Program
    to account for revenue hungry actions of institutions.
    Institutions' focus on increasing revenue means less time and
    fewer resources are spent on actual student success
    initiatives. Millions of Pell Grant recipients have failed to
    earn a post-secondary credential. The four-year completion rate
    for all Baccalaureate degree students is a paltry 44 percent.
        The costs of failing to complete on time are enormous. Each
    additional year of school in a public four-year college costs
    over $60,000.00 after accounting for school expenses and lost
    wages. It is not only low-income students suffering from failed
    higher educational policy.
        Even if the students do graduate, there are serious
    questions about the value of education that they receive. The
    2018 job outlook survey conducted by the National Association
    of Colleges and Employers found that almost 80 percent of
    students considered themselves proficient at oral and written
    communications, but employers only thought 40 percent of the
    students were competent communicators.
        Pumping additional dollars into the Pell Grant problem will
    not solve the serious underlying issues plaguing the higher
    education sector. Comprehensive reform of the HEA's
    accountability framework will do more to help students in the
    long-term, than just pouring money into a failing system.
        Republicans know that there are many paths to life-long
    success. The commanding heights of the American culture
    pressure too many people into narrow Baccalaureate degree
    pipelines. The Committee's primary focus should be setting up
    Pell Grant recipients for posterity, no matter the type of
    educational pathway they choose. Access to college matters, but
    a Baccalaureate isn't the only option for looking to live
    fulfilling lives.
        We must fix a broken system, not by throwing more money at
    it, but demanding financial accountability by higher
    educational systems. I look forward to hearing from the
    witnesses on how to fix our flawed post-educational--post-
    secondary educational policies. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will
    yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Gregory F. Murphy, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
                   Higher Education and Workforce Investment

        The Pell Grant program is the cornerstone of Federal student aid.
    Every year over 6.5 million Americans pursue postsecondary education
    with the help of the Pell Grant. Created in 1972, the Pell Grant
    program advances the Higher Education Act's (HEA) mission to increase
    access to college.
        Eligible undergraduate students, most of whom come from extremely
    low-income families, use the voucher-like grant to enroll in a
    participating program at a college or university of their choice.
        Historical enrollment numbers demonstrate the program's success in
    encouraging people to consider postsecondary education. In 1972, 49
    percent of recent high school graduates enrolled in college. Today,
    that number stands at almost 67 percent.
        Congress created a generous Federal student aid system. Even
    adjusted for inflation, the maximum Pell Grant award of $6,495 has
    never been higher.
        One could reasonably assume this means that college has never been
    more affordable for Pell Grant recipients. Sadly, the truth is that
    colleges and universities, not the students, are the major
    beneficiaries of the Pell Grant program.
        In a 20-year period from 1997 to 2017, the Pell grant increased 44
    percent in real terms. Yet the maximum Pell Grant, as a percentage of
    published prices, went from covering 94 percent of tuition and fees at
    public four-year colleges in 2000 to 61 percent in 2015.
        Former Secretary of Education William Bennett believed that the
    Federal student aid program allows institutions of postsecondary
    education to raise their prices because the institutions know widely
    available Federal loan and grant subsidies will cushion the blow of
    increased consumer costs.
        That may have just been a hypothesis when he made that claim in
    1987, but newly available data now proves the Bennett Hypothesis was
    correct. A recent analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    examined the link between student aid and college costs. The report
    found a pass-through effect of Pell Grant award amounts and published
    tuition prices. In other words, for every dollar the Federal Government
    increases student aid, colleges raise their prices by an incremental
    amount.
        Additional dollars allocated to poor students will eventually wind
    up captured by institutions. Congress wanted to subsidize students but
    wound up subsidizing institutions. Schools are taking advantage of the
    taxpayers' charity.
        This Committee should be concerned about the unintentional
    consequences of well-intentioned student aid policies. Republicans' and
    Democrats' goal to make college more affordable for all families has
    led to skyrocketing college costs.
        We cannot afford to perpetuate a system trapped in a vicious
    Bennett Hypothesis cycle. There is no question that the promise of
    higher education is broken. Eventually, colleges and universities must
    be held accountable for their actions and justify their outrageous
    prices. Congress must recalibrate the Federal student aid system to
    account for the revenue-hungry actions of institutions.
        Institutions' focus on increasing revenue means less time and fewer
    resources are spent on student success initiatives. Millions of Pell
    Grant recipients have failed to earn a postsecondary credential. The
    four-year completion rate for all baccalaureate degree students is a
    paltry
        44 percent. The costs of failing to complete on time are enormous.
    Each additional year of school in a public four-year college costs over
    $60,000 after accounting for school expenses and lost wages.
        It is not only low-income students suffering from failed higher
    education
        policy. Even if students do graduate, there are serious questions
    about the value of the education received. A 2018 Job Outlook Survey
    conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found
    almost 80 percent of students considered themselves proficient at oral
    and written communications, but employers thought only 41 percent of
    their students were competent communicators.
        Pumping additional dollars into the Pell Grant program will not
    solve these serious underlying issues plaguing the higher education
    sector. Comprehensive reform of the HEA's accountability framework will
    do more to help students in the long term than just pouring money into
    a failing system.
        Republicans know there are many paths to lifelong success. The
    commanding heights of American culture pressure too many people into a
    narrow baccalaureate-degree pipeline. The Committee's primary focus
    should be on setting up Pell Grant recipients for prosperity no matter
    the type of educational pathway they choose. Access to college matters,
    but a baccalaureate degree isn't the only option for those looking to
    live fulfilling lives.
        We must fix a broken system, not by throwing more money at it, but
    by demanding financial accountability from our higher education
    systems.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on how we can fix our
    flawed postsecondary education policies.
                                     ______

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. I will now introduce our witnesses.
    First Dr. Justin Ortagus is an Associate Professor of Higher
    Education and administration policy, and Director of the
    Institute of Higher Education at the University of Florida. He
    holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, and a Master of
    Education and educational leadership from the University of
    Florida, and a Ph.D. in higher education from Penn State
    University. He's a former Pell Grant recipient.
        Dr. Robert J. Jones became Chancellor of the University of
    Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2016. Prior to becoming
    Chancellor he served as President of the University at Albany
    State, Albany, State University of New York, or SUNY. He earned
    a bachelor's degree from Fort Valley State College, a master's
    degree in crops, physiology from the University of Georgia, and
    a Doctorate in crop physiology from the University of Missouri
    in Columbia.
        Dr. Michael Poliakoff became President of the American
    Council of Trustees and Alumni, or ACTA in 2016. Prior to
    becoming President he served as Vice President of Policy at
    ACTA. He received his Bachelor of Arts from Yale University,
    and a Ph.D. in classical studies from the University of
    Michigan.
        I will now yield to my friend from New York who's asked to
    introduce our last witness, the gentleman from New York Mr.
    Espaillat.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman Scott. It has my
    pleasure to introduce Darleny Suriel, who I am proud to say is
    an Afro-Latina of Dominican descent. She is a student at City
    College where I taught as an adjunct professor, Mr. Chairman,
    right in Harlem, right in Hamilton Heights in the 13th
    congressional District.
        And she is a current Pell Grant recipient. She previously
    attended SUNY Purchase and Borough of Manhattan Community
    College where she completed her associate degree in December
    2020. She also works as a policy assistant for degrees at NYC
    at the Goddard Riverside Center. I know very well, when I was a
    Member of the State Senate, I represented the Columbus Avenue
    area in the 80's where Goddard Riverside provides those
    critical services.
        And she focuses on equity and success in post-secondary
    education completion. I look forward to learning a great deal
    from Ms. Suriel. She will instruct us and educate us all as she
    is an important voice in this debate, and I thank you Mr.
    Chairman for giving me the opportunity to introduce her. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. And I want to welcome all of our
    witnesses. We appreciate them for participating today and look
    forward to their testimony. We will remind the witnesses that
    we have your written statements, and they will appear in full
    in the hearing record.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d), and Committee practice,
    each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a five
    minute summary of your written statement. But before you begin
    your testimony, please remember to unmute your microphone.
    During your testimony staff will be keeping track of time, and
    a light will blink when time is up.
        Please be attentive to the time, and wrap up when your time
    is over, and then remute your microphone. If any of you
    experience technical difficulties during your testimony, or
    later during the hearing, you should stay connected on the
    platform, make sure you are muted and use your telephone to
    immediately call the Committee's IT director whose number was
    provided to you in advance.
        We will let all the witnesses make their presentations, and
    then we'll move to Member questions. When answering questions
    please remember to unmute your microphone. Witnesses are aware
    of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the
    Subcommittee, so we will now proceed directly to their
    testimony, and we will begin with Dr. Ortagus. Dr. Ortagus
    you're recognized for five minutes.

             STATEMENT OF JUSTIN ORTAGUS, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE
      PROFESSOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY AND
                  DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF HIGHER
                    EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Ortagus. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Murphy, and
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. My personal journey from Pell Grant recipient to
    college professor is a testament to how need-based aid can
    change the trajectory of student's lives.
        The Pell Grant program is designed to increase educational
    attainment for lower income individuals who may not reap the
    benefits of a college education otherwise. Unfortunately, the
    purchasing power of the Pell Grant has diminished over time.
    The maximum Pell Grant previously covered 79 percent of the
    average costs of attending a public four-year institution, but
    today's Pell Grant only covers 29 percent.
        The college enrollment rates of individuals with low-income
    families are significantly lower than their upper-and middle-
    income peers, particularly among students of color and public
    flagship universities. Even after controlling for academic
    ability, college enrollment rates for high school graduates
    from the lowest earning families are 30 percentage points lower
    than high school graduates from the highest earning families.
        The United States had a problem with low enrollment among
    low-income students before the COVID-19 pandemic, but that
    problem has intensified over the past 18 months. The number of
    high school graduates who enrolled in college decreased by 6.8
    percent in 2020.
        But decreases in college enrollment numbers were 2.3 times
    greater for students from low-income high schools when compared
    to students from higher income high schools, with the sharpest
    enrollment declines at public colleges and universities. So why
    aren't more low-income students obtaining the benefits of
    college?
        Generally speaking there are two types of barriers that
    prevent low-income students from enrolling in college--
    informational barriers and financial barriers. Despite the
    importance of removing informational barriers by simplifying
    and streamlining the admissions and financial aid processes,
    low-income student barriers are rooted in their financial
    distress, and the most effective policy solutions will directly
    address that reality by increasing need-based financial aid,
    and thereby reducing unmet financial need.
        State disinvestments in higher education are another
    important consideration in this conversation. Nationally, State
    appropriations for higher education remain 6 percent below
    Fiscal Year 2008 levels, and 12 states are at least 20 percent
    below their pre-recession levels. This general trend has played
    a part in rising tuition at public four-year institutions, and
    the affordability crisis facing low-income students.
        Numerous studies have shown the positive impact of need
    based financial aid on low-income students' likelihood of
    college enrollment, persistence, and degree completion. In one
    rigorous study, a team of researchers found that providing Pell
    Grant recipients with access to additional need-based aid,
    increased their likelihood of going to college, graduating from
    college, and earning higher wages in the labor market.
        That same study shows that increases in need-based aid
    represent a good investment that pays for itself several times
    over, given that estimated increases will allow the government
    to fully recoup its investment within 10 years.
        Current and future investments, the conversations and
    efforts designed to improve college access and student success
    among low-income students should be informed by rigorous
    evidence, and data-informed best practices.
        One example is the HAIL Scholarship at the University of
    Michigan, which increased application rates by 42 percentage
    points, and enrollment rates by 15 percentage points among
    high-achieving low-income students, and I provide details of
    that intervention in my written testimony.
        Another example is the CUNY ASAP model, reflecting a
    comprehensive approach to student support. CUNY ASAP
    participants were nearly twice as likely to graduate after 3
    years when compared to their peers not participating in the
    program.
        The evidence I've outlined provides a clear path forward.
    Given that the purchasing power of the Pell Grant has decreased
    over time, the Federal Government could substantially increase
    its investment in the Pell Grant to increase access for low-
    income students.
        In addition, low-income students benefit greatly from
    affordability or tuition-free guarantees, given their
    considerable financial hardships. The academic literature
    offers compelling evidence of the importance of addressing both
    informational and financial barriers when seeking to increase
    access and support success in higher education.
        The American Families Plan can offer much needed funding to
    underresourced institutions serving a disproportionate share of
    low-income students, and students of color. This type of
    targeted investment, evidence-based retention and degree
    completion strategies can extend the Federal policy
    conversation beyond college access to improving student
    success. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ortagus follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Justin Ortagus

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Dr. Jones?

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. JONES, Ph.D., CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF
                       ILLINOIS URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
    Murphy and Members of the Subcommittee for holding this
    hearing, and for inviting me to testify on behalf of the
    University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. In my written
    testimony I noted that the Pell Grant augments our own annual
    investment of more than 145 million of institutional aid, and I
    shared some best practices and some lessons that we've learned
    in Illinois, as we've increased our enrollment and graduation
    rates of Pell eligible students.
        These include the Illinois Promise, and the Illinois
    Commitment, our free attendance and free tuition programs for
    low-income families, and those below the medium income rate,
    plus some of our earlier engagement recruitment programs, and
    our student success efforts that has led to a graduation rate
    that is nearly 40 percent above the national average.
        For my opening remarks my message is very short and very
    simple. I am here to advocate in the strongest possible way for
    an increase in Pell Federal funding for expansion of the number
    of families that are able to access these critically important
    grants, and as a Member of the Association of American
    Universities, and the Association of Public and Land Grant
    University, my university is fully supportive of the Double the
    Pell Campaign.
        The Pell program is one of the most strategic, efficient,
    flexible Federal investments that we can make in our Nation's
    educational, economic, and social development. This is a
    professional assessment, but it also is deeply rooted in my own
    personal experiences.
        Yes, I am the Chancellor of an original land grant
    university, and we are the flagship university in our State. We
    enroll more than 52,000 students and award more than 13,000
    undergraduate, and graduate degrees each year, more than one in
    five of our freshman are first generation students.
        I grew up as the child of a sharecropper in southwestern
    Georgia during the Jim Crow Era. I was the first in my family
    to attend college. Scholarships or Pell Grants were not readily
    accessible for kids like me, so I worked full-time jobs in high
    school to save enough money to attend Fort Valley State
    College, where I earned my undergraduate degree, and while
    finishing a master's degree at University of Georgia.
        I received an offer from the University of Missouri to
    pursue a Ph.D. with the support of the George Washington Carver
    Fellowship. That fellowship changed everything for me forever.
    It paid more than $7,000.00 a year, more money than I had ever
    earned, and it was also the first time I could be a student
    without working part-time jobs to support my studies.
        So removing that financial obstacle was a life and career
    changing opportunity. In so many ways I was just lucky. But it
    is unacceptable today that college attainment, success, and all
    of the advantages that come with a degree should come down to a
    matter of luck for anyone in our country.
        Financial need is the one common, easily identifiable,
    fully stoppable obstacle to college access, success, post-
    college opportunities, for too many. It is a particularly acute
    crisis for families living on the economic margins in our
    country. Double the Pell, triple it even. I just ask that you
    act now. There is an urgency here every day that we delay,
    Pell's purchasing power is further eroded. Educational access
    will be the driver of our recovery and our ability to rebuild
    from this devasting COVID-19 pandemic.
        We have a rare window of opportunity right now to expand
    the program that will immediately change the lives for millions
    of families in this country. By increasing overall funding,
    increasing the maximum grant, and broadening access, you give
    our Nation's universities more resources and more flexibility
    to tailor programs in ways that are best in line with the needs
    of our respective states, and the families you represent.
        You significantly reduce personal and family financial
    constraints as an obstacle to college attendance. You
    dramatically improve the retention and the graduation rates of
    low-income and under-represented students once they enter
    college and university, and you significantly reduce the
    overall debt of those students when they graduate.
        I fully understand that when it comes to Federal funding,
    Congress will always be challenged to balance the many
    legitimate and important priorities, but I would argue that the
    math in this case is simple, and overwhelmingly convincing. One
    program, more college access, more college graduates, less
    student debt. So in short by strengthening the Pell Grant you
    create a more competitive, equitable, productive workforce to
    meet the needs of our 21st Century society.
        So thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to responding to any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Robert J. Jones

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Dr. Poliakoff.

     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL B. POLIAKOFF, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
                     COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES AND ALUMNI

        Mr. Poliakoff. I thank Representative Scott, Ranking Member
    Murphy, and the Members of this Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to address the critical issue of Pell Grants and
    student success. For over 25 years the American Council of
    Trustees and Alumni, ACTA for short, has worked to ensure that
    America's students receive an intellectually rich high-quality
    college education, at an affordable price.
        The Pell Grant has been the cornerstone of America's
    investment in college financial aid for nearly 50 years. It has
    been an engine of access to higher education. But for Pell
    Grants fully to realize their promise they need greater
    accountability. The leading education journal Inside Higher Ed
    States, the value of the Pell Grant hasn't kept up with the
    cost of college, and we must ask why not.
        The price of college is simply just too high. The average
    student that borrows to fund a college education graduates with
    over $39,000.00 of debt. Simply increasing Federal funding will
    not solve this issue. During the Great Recession, the Federal
    Government helped Americans return to college. The government
    increased the borrowing limit for undergraduates, while the
    Recovery Act increased the maximum Pell Grant and expanded
    eligibility. From 2007 to 2010, Pell Grant expenditures rose
    from nearly 16 billion to 37 billion, and student loans grew
    from almost 75 billion to over 110 billion.
        Despite increased Federal aid, growth and tuition costs
    outpaced both aid and discounting, forcing families to pay more
    and increasing the amount of student loan debt. Some states saw
    tuition fees at four-year public institutions, rise by an
    average of $2,800.00.
        After adjusting for inflation, tuition at four-year public
    institutions rose 19 percent during the recession. ACTA
    surveyed over 1,500 public and private non-profit institutions
    and found that despite the decrease in certain sources of
    revenue following the recession, colleges and universities made
    no comparable cuts in spending.
        Schools had a choice, cut spending or charge students more,
    and the majority chose the latter. We must recognize that the
    student debt crisis is fundamentally a spending crisis.
    Furthermore, a greater portion of this spending is going to
    non-instructional sources such as student services,
    administration, and construction.
        On this last point colleges and universities have been
    profligate. Our research at top ranked public universities
    found that the overwhelming majority failed to meet their
    state's minimum expectations for hours of classroom use, but
    they built new spaces. In 2015 alone, colleges and universities
    spent 11.5 billion on the construction and maintenance of 21
    million square feet of new space.
        We must face the music. In total the United States spends
    an average of about $30,000.00 per student per year on higher
    education, a figure nearly twice the average of other developed
    nations. Spending has not brought us the outcomes that we
    should expect.
        Worse than the spike in tuition that followed the increases
    in loan limits and Pell Grants is the fact that the completion
    rates for students who enrolled in college in 2008, 9 and 10,
    fell. This brings us to the second crucial issue for any Pell
    Grant legislation--the lack of oversight at the institutional
    level.
        Are schools doing enough to ensure that Pell students
    receive the academic support they need to graduate? When the
    data finally became available in 2017, an analysis by Third
    Way, referenced by Representative Scott, revealed that Pell
    students graduate at a rate 18 percentage points lower than
    their non-Pell peers.
        214 institutions have Pell graduation rates lower than 25
    percent. A Pell Grant should not be allowed so often to be a
    ticket to nowhere. Finally, too often policy proposals push
    students toward four-year degrees, a position which reveals a
    lack of respect for the value of community colleges and career
    education.
        Please look carefully at any proposal that fails to examine
    how colleges are spending Federal funds. We recommend scrutiny
    of the completion rates at institutions that receive Pell Grant
    students, and echo a suggestion made by Third Way skin in the
    game.
        Institutions with poor Pell Grant completion rates should
    be held accountable. And we ask Congress to incentivize
    creative initiatives to lower cost as Representative Murphy
    suggested. For example, aforementioned consortia for
    instructional delivery, year-round use of campus, baccalaureate
    degrees in 90, rather than 120 credit hours.
        Increasing the size of the Pell Grant may well be
    appropriate, but only if accompanied by rigorous new
    accountability measures and metrics. Thank you for the
    opportunity to be with you today.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Poliakoff follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Michael B. Poliakoff

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. And last but not least, Ms. Suriel.

           DARLENY SURIEL, STUDENT, CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK

        Ms. Suriel. Good morning, Chair Scott, Ranking Member
    Murphy, and Members of the U.S. Higher Education and Workforce
    Investment Subcommittee. My name is Darleny Suriel. I'm a
    first-generation Afro-Dominican immigrant from the Bronx, and a
    senior at the City College of New York.
        I also work at DegreesNYC, a collective impact movement,
    working toward education equity in New York City. I'm here to
    speak to you today about my college experience, and how the
    Pell Grant has contributed positively to my role to success.
        I have had an unconventional post-secondary journey through
    three public academic institutions--SUNY Purchase College,
    CUNY's Borough of Manhattan Community College, and CUNY City
    College where I am currently pursuing my bachelor's degree. My
    academic journey has included many personal, financial, and
    systemic challenges.
        My experience is similar to a third of college students
    nationwide who have transferred during their college career.
    The Pell Grant has supported students like me as we navigate
    through these institutions. Thanks to the Pell Grant, I have
    had access to high-quality education without worrying about
    accumulating significant debt.
        When I began my college career at SUNY Purchase, I was
    fortunate enough to be eligible for the SUNY Educational
    Opportunity Program, EOP, which offers students' academic and
    financial support. However, even with help from EOP and the
    Pell Grant, I did not have enough to fully cover my room and
    board.
        I still had to take out a loan of over $5,000.00 while
    struggling to afford costs above tuition. At the time my family
    could only afford to give me $40.00 for my fall semester, so I
    had no choice but to get a part-time job in addition to my work
    study job.
        Starting college as a first-generation freshman was a
    challenging and intimidating transition for me. I am thankful
    for Pell because it's the reason I can afford to go to college,
    however, I do believe increasing Pell would alleviate some of
    the financial burdens students like me face.
        After my first year at Purchase, I transferred to Borough
    of Manhattan Community College in New York City. While
    attending BMCC as a commuter, I am no longer qualified for an
    opportunity program, which meant that my schoolbooks would not
    be covered by CUNY.
        As a BMCC student, I also encountered costs above tuition
    that were significantly higher than at Purchase. I had to buy
    weekly Metro cards that would cost me over $500.00 a semester.
    I remember feeling frustrated because in high school I was
    eligible for free school Metro cards due to my socioeconomic
    status, but that changed once I entered college, even though my
    financial circumstances did not.
        There were days where I had to miss class because I could
    not afford a Metro card. In addition to being a full-time
    student, I had to take on a part-time job at Best Buy to afford
    these non-tuition expenses. I worked almost 30 hours weekly.
    Half of my paycheck went to these expenses, while the other
    half went to my household.
        College students need to focus on their education without
    having to stress out about working long and strenuous shifts,
    to be able to afford transportation, food, or the academic
    resources they need to excel academically. The pandemic has
    shined a light on the food insecurity, housing insecurity,
    digital insecurity, and unemployment that college students are
    experiencing at alarming rates.
        Almost half of the college student population in this
    country deals with food insecurity. These financial obstacles
    can negatively impact the student's academic performance, and
    ability to graduate on time. When I transferred to City
    College, I was alleviated from many of the costs associated
    with being a commuter student due to remote learning.
        My school cafeteria was not my refrigerator, and my school
    transportation was a Zoom link. If the spring 2021 semester
    would not have been remote, my Pell Grant would not have been
    enough to cover these costs. My 2021 spring semester Pell
    amount was barely enough to cover my tuition. I still had to
    pay $300.00 out of pocket.
        If I had gone to school in person, my expenses above
    tuition would have exceeded $1,000.00. I'm a full-time student,
    a part-time worker, and a caretaker for my two siblings with
    disabilities. My mother and I are the only financial providers
    of our household. I do not have the privilege of being able to
    solely focus on my academics due to these financial
    responsibilities.
        As I prepare to go back to in-person learning next month, I
    worry that my Pell Grant would not be enough to cover my
    tuition, let alone my above tuition expenses. I also worry that
    I will run out of Pell before attaining my bachelor's degree
    due to my non-traditional college journey.
        Expanding Pell would allow college students the opportunity
    to trust their academic journey, instead of treating college as
    a race that they must complete in four-years, or risk losing
    their financial aid. The Pell Grant must be doubled so that it
    can reflect the current needs of college students.
        About 30 percent of college students graduate at the
    traditional four-year rate compared to almost 60 percent at a
    6-year rate. Expanding the Pell Grant acknowledges this reality
    and can support students as they pursue a post-secondary
    degree.
        Education is supposed to be the great equalizer in this
    country, but how can that be so if every student does not have
    an equal chance of affording a college education? The cost of
    college is more than tuition. Therefore, the amount of Pell
    college students receive should cover more than just tuition.
    Passing the Pell Grant Preservation and Expansion Act can
    increase enrollment and degree completion amongst college
    students.
        These students are potential CEOs, doctors, lawyers,
    congressional leaders, and even Presidents, who just need their
    national leaders to believe in them enough to invest in them.
    We are the future of this country's economy and workforce.
    Doubling the Pell Grant would not only be an investment in the
    education of young college students, it would also be an
    investment in the future of this country. Thank you for your
    time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Suriel follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Darleny Suriel

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you. And under Committee Rule
    9(a) we will now question witnesses under the five-minute rule.
    I will be recognizing Committee Members in seniority order.
    Again, to ensure the Member's five-minute rule is adhered to,
    staff will be keeping track of time and the timer will show a
    blinking light when time is expired, so please be attentive to
    wrap up when your time has expired, and remute your microphone.
        And the first questioner is on the way to the White House
    for a special event, but still wanted to participate. The
    gentlemen from California Mr. Takano.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is
    for Mr. Ortagus. Mr. Ortagus, are you aware of any studies
    which validate the Bennett hypothesis that was mentioned in the
    Ranking Member's opening comments?
        Mr. Ortagus. Yes, thank you for your question. There are
    studies that validate the Bennett hypothesis, but they're
    restricted to for-profit universities. The Bennett hypothesis
    does not hold well at all with public universities. Public
    universities obviously have constraints or caps on their
    tuition through the State often times, but separate from that,
    all the evidence that finds the limited effectiveness of this
    actually holding, again is constrained within the private for-
    profit sector
        Mr. Takano. That's very interesting Mr. Ortagus because the
    Chairman and this Committee have really done some
    groundbreaking work to reign in for-profit universities. And as
    you said the studies that do exist to validate the Bennett
    hypothesis, so mainly have only shown that it's for-profit
    institutions that seem to fall in line with that hypothesis.
        So the research does show that for-profit institutions base
    tuition on the amount of financial aid available. A rigorous
    study found that for-profit institutions eligible for Federal
    student aid charged 78 percent more than comparable programs at
    ineligible for-profit institutions.
        I think that's what you're getting at. I understand that
    you yourself were a Pell recipient, and based on your
    experience and your research, what improvements can be made to
    the Pell Grant program to help more low-income students go to
    college and complete a degree?
        Mr. Ortagus. Sure. A couple things I reference in my
    testimony are the informational and financial barriers. So
    obviously, for informational barriers if we could reduce the
    uncertainty, reduce the complexity for getting the Pell Grants
    in the hands of lower income students, that's kind of a no
    brainer and straightforward with some legislation and
    administrative action we've seen.
        The most obvious and pressing component is increasing the
    Pell Grant, providing additional financial aid. You're exactly
    right. I was a Pell recipient, and this really provided me the
    option and the privilege to stop being a cashier at the local
    Wynn-Dixie grocery store and focus more on my studies and my
    pursuit of higher education. I think all students should be
    afforded that opportunity and leverage to be able to focus on
    their academic work in that same way.
        But there's an overwhelming amount of literature speaking
    to the positive impact of need-based aid which really ties to
    the need to increase the Pell Grant in a meaningful manner.
        Mr. Takano. Well thank you for that. How has the pandemic
    worsened barriers for Pell Grant recipients, and what can be
    done at the institutional State and Federal levels to alleviate
    these barriers?
        Mr. Ortagus. Sure. Some things I've talked about in my full
    written testimony, but not as much in my oral testimony is what
    actually happens to low-income students during a pandemic, so
    they're more likely to drop a course. They're more likely to
    have financial issues with employment, the obvious financial
    issues, but they are also really clear issues with
    accessibility to a reliable internet, and potentially having
    the issues with employment and some of the service work
    industries, really has direct kind of implications for students
    who are dealing with financial distress in higher education.
        So COVID-19 has really exacerbated some of these issues.
    There's also really compelling literature showing that the
    FAFSA declines are concentrated in the neighborhoods of low-
    income and high share of black and Hispanic individuals as
    well. So it's really bringing to bear and it's exacerbating
    many of the inequities that already exist prior to the COVID-19
    pandemic.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you for that Dr. Ortagus. I just want to
    close with my observation that the study that we mentioned
    earlier that found that for-profit institutions eligible for
    Federal aid charged 78 percent more than comparable programs at
    ineligible for-profit institutions.
        The study also showed that the price differential between
    the for-profit institution receiving Federal aid, and the
    ineligible institution is approximately the same amount of the
    Federal subsidy, meaning that students paid the same in the net
    price at either type of for-profit institution, but the
    ineligible for-profit school pockets the Federal aid.
        This strongly suggests that we need better oversight of the
    for-profit sector, not that we should stop providing students
    with Federal aid to enroll in college. I yield back Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. We'll now turn to does Ms. Miller-
    Meeks seek recognition for questions?
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Yes sir, thank you so much.
        Mr. Scott. OK thank you. You have five minutes.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I appreciate the opportunity to address
    our witnesses, so thank you very much. As many of you know I
    left home at 16 to become a doctor, and the route for me was
    through community college, then to a four-year degree, and then
    on to medical school.
        In the intervening time being active duty in the military.
    I also got a master's in education. And so what I found through
    the educational system is that as we increased third party
    payment and removed the student receiving the education from
    the payment, be that loans, scholarships, or other avenues
    we've seen the cost of higher education continually to
    skyrocket out of sync with inflation.
        We also see this in healthcare which is the same kind of
    system. So the other thing that I've seen is the continued push
    for four-year Baccalaureate degree which for some people is
    certainly the route to go after high school, but for others is
    not.
        So Dr. Poliakoff, could you answer, do you think that a
    Baccalaureate degree is the only avenue for a meaningful
    career, or are there other avenues, and how would you recommend
    addressing this disparity that we've seen?
        Mr. Poliakoff. Thank you, Representative Miller-Meeks, for
    that question. My answer is emphatically no for the pressure to
    have a four-year degree. I'd like to recommend a book, it's now
    in its third edition called Other Ways to Win by Gray and Herr.
    The fact is that for many students a four-year degree is
    absolutely correct. We've got a lot of problems to address
    within that degree, but for others it really is like an
    attractive nuisance.
        In other words, pulling students into a degree program for
    which they are not ready, while on the other hand community
    colleges and career education--and let me say we need to level
    the playing field when we talk about these issues. For-profits
    are not, should be viewed the same way that we view non-profit
    institutions, the same accountability measures.
        You know let me get back to the point about community
    colleges. There was a time when we had a great number of
    reverse transfers. Students who got four-year degrees, and then
    went back to community colleges because they needed to get the
    kind of training that would allow them to have family
    sustaining income. That tells us a lot.
        There are entirely too many four-year degree programs that
    are really nugatory, that do not prepare people either for
    career or for citizenship. So forgive me for going on at some
    length Representative, but I think you're entirely right. We
    are off track if we think that the four-year degree is the only
    way to win.
        One thing that I would stress is that community colleges
    and four-year institutions must have good articulation
    agreements so that the pathway is clear. States that have
    strong two plus two programs have generally seen some very,
    very good results.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you for that. And I'd also like to
    say some of the things that I, having gone to medical school,
    some of the things I currently see in our higher education
    system, and in medical school focusing on things other than the
    science that we'll need to address issues, similar to lack of
    accountability.
        So I'm wondering if you consider accountability measures
    and metrics and is there anything to control for grade
    inflation and low standards, in other words, for schools to
    game the system and their graduation rates, but without the
    quality that makes for a meaningful degree, and a meaningful
    career path.
        Mr. Poliakoff. That is an extremely important question that
    any degree should not be a ticket to nowhere, an expensive
    ticket to nowhere. And there are certainly ways to make sure
    that graduation rates aren't gamed. There are some excellent
    academic value-added assessments that need to be used more, the
    ETS proficiency profile, the Council on Aid to Education,
    Collegiate Learning Assessment.
        These are rigorous tests. I actually had the temerity to
    try one, and I'm glad nobody ever recorded my score. There are
    ways of seeing how well students have taken in the core
    collegiate skills that they need for success in any career. We
    need to use these better.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much and thank you Mr.
    Chair. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. And I see you're competing with some
    of your colleagues from behind you. Thank you for
    participating.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I do apologize.
        Mr. Scott. On their behalf, thank you. Ms. Leger-Fernandez
    is next up. You're recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much Chair and Ranking
    Member. You know I do consistently hear from constituents and
    the schools in my district that the Pell Grant is so essential,
    and one of the best ways we can improve our higher education
    system I will admit like many of us here I received the Pell
    Grant, and for a time my kids actually received the Pell Grant.
    It tells you the kind of work I was doing.
        But I wanted to ask Chancellor Jones a question. Earlier we
    heard Mr. Poliakoff's testimony criticize the increase in
    student services, non-academic services that schools were
    engaging in as part of profligate spending. Can you describe
    how services like wraparound services for disadvantaged
    students, are they beneficial, and whether you believe that
    these non-academic services are necessary to ensure success?
        Mr. Jones. Yes. Let me just say thank you for the question.
    I have--fundamentally believe that an important part of the
    educational experience occurs outside of the formal classroom.
    I think sometimes we get too focused on the formal classrooms,
    and we don't really fully appreciate that those services that
    occur outside of the classroom further supports the ability of
    our students to be academically successful.
        And so it's one thing to recruit a student into your
    university to provide the bridge for financial support, but you
    have to bring them into a place that has a culture of providing
    those wraparound services that are critically important to
    their mental health, their sense of well-being, that provides
    the academic support that they need to be successful.
        And a lot of that academic support actually begins before
    you admit them into your university, in terms of summer bridge
    programs. How do you reach out to Pell eligible students and
    make sure they understand, and that they are well prepared to
    be successful in your university.
        And I can tell you, you must invest in those services if
    you are going to have students that not only are admitted, but
    graduate in a timely fashion. I can tell you that is part of
    the secret sauce. Pell is the absolute foundation for our
    Illinois Promise and our Illinois Commitment.
        But those wraparound services we provide for students once
    they get here is the reason that our graduation rate for Pell
    students is between 80 to 82 percent, one of the highest 39-40
    percent higher than the national average. And only about 6
    percent lower than what the majority population, and we're
    working hard to close that gap by investing in those wraparound
    services that really does make a difference.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And I wanted to one
    congratulate Darleny Suriel for her commitment and her
    perseverance, and just ask you whether you believe that the
    doubling of Pell, you said it was really necessary, but you
    also pointed out how the student debt that you had to take out
    was impacting you, and your ability, and your family.
        Do you think that the doubling of Pell is enough so you
    don't have to undertake significant student debt in the future,
    or will you also still need to if we actually doubled Pell,
    take out loans to make it through?
        Ms. Suriel. Yes, thank you for that question, Congresswoman
    Fernandez. I think that it's a start. It's a big step. It
    definitely would have made a difference for me because I
    wouldn't have had to take out that loan, and I wouldn't have
    had to worry about that debt.
        Is it enough? I don't think so. I attend a public
    institution because it's a lot cheaper, but for students that
    are attending private institutions, even doubling the Pell
    Grant would still force them to take out loans in order to be
    able to afford their education.
        But I definitely think that doubling the Pell Grant for
    students in public institutions, it would allow them to afford
    other resources that they need, such as like I said
    transportation costs, food, and even other digital devices such
    as a laptop, mobile hotspot.
        We saw how big the digital gap was, especially throughout
    the pandemic, but it would allow them to afford these resources
    so that they can excel academically, and they can attain a
    degree.
        Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. Chancellor Jones, I also
    wanted to have a conversation with you about the benefit of
    attracting and hiring minority professors because for example
    in New Mexico, 23 of the 29 universities and colleges we have
    here are minority serving. I ran out of time to do that, so
    I'll submit that in writing because I do think that that's an
    important topic for us to explore. Thank you very much Mr.
    Chairman I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. The Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee, and I got a message that he had wanted me to
    defer to Ms. Miller-Meeks as the first questioner, but so thank
    you for that. And for questions, Dr. Murphy.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
    witnesses that are here today. I truly understand the
    difficulties of the burdens that we're now placing upon
    students in overwhelming debt. I mean I was on a full
    scholarship, but I still had to take a job to help afford other
    costs, and you know that's what's part of having skin in the
    game.
        We can't have everything always given to us, and I knew I
    just had to work extra hours despite being in a pre-medical
    program. So I'm very attuned to the debt and the hardship that
    we face, but that's also life, and that's how we work through
    things. I have a question with Dr. Poliakoff, and by the way
    thank you. You and I have had many discussions about some of
    the insanities that are going on regarding some of the things
    that happen on campus with administrative bloat et cetera.
        I'll ask two questions. I was on the Board of Trustees of a
    liberal arts college, and I appreciate your help with that. Can
    you discuss the role that you believe Board of Trustees have
    about that are occurring on college campuses these days?
        I was on one that at times was just a rubber stamp, and I
    don't think that's what boards should be, but I would
    appreciate your evaluation of what's going on in college
    campuses these days.
        Mr. Poliakoff. Thank you, Congressman Murphy, Dr. Murphy.
    We need to be very clear about what should be the role of the
    trustee. The trustee is not primarily a checkbook, or a
    cheerleader, although it's great for them to support their
    institutions. They're fiduciaries. They're the people who have
    to make the hard calls.
        They should not seek an adversarial relationship with
    administration, but they are their supervisors. Ultimately,
    everything that happens on campus is something that they are
    accountable for. They tend to understand usually a little bit
    more about the budget as one of their key roles, but they also
    need to take a look at issues of the core function of the
    institution which is academic success.
        What's the curriculum like? What's the general education
    program like? They should take a look at student life. The
    level of the free exchange of ideas, these are all part of
    their solemn responsibility.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I agree with you completely. We talk
    about free speech on campuses, that's a whole other different
    discussion. I've been very vocal about administrative bloat.
    You know we look at the money that just flows into colleges.
    There's been very, very, very, little activity in regard to
    actually reigning in college costs.
        We say, you know, we hear so many times we need more money,
    we need more money, we need more money, well in medicine about
    15 years ago there was a great transition because Medicare
    wasn't paying us anymore. We weren't getting more and more from
    Medicare, we actually had to cut costs. So tell me what you
    believe. Is there any hope for universities, colleges, to
    actually take that seriously to cut costs, to actually help our
    students in the long-term, rather than bloating budgets from
    administrators and all these extra programs.
        Mr. Poliakoff. Yes indeed. They need to look to the
    positive outliers, and they are there. Perdue, President Mitch
    Daniels former Governor has an administrative cost that's
    $1,100.00 less than the peers. They have had a tuition freeze
    for 7 years. It went down, the tuition went down from the time
    he started as President, and their academic measures have
    simply been going up all the time.
        This can be done. Arizona State University is another
    example where administrative costs have actually dropped per
    student. I recommend, I don't mean to be touting our own
    products, but we have a free website called
    howcollegesspendmoney.com where with a few keystrokes people
    can see what is the ratio between spending on administration
    versus instruction.
        In some cases I hope Boards of Trustees will look at it and
    say we need to investigate. Maybe there's a good reason for it,
    but this is not acceptable.
        Mr. Murphy. Yes, I agree completely. We want to support our
    students. We want to give them every single one, regardless of
    socioeconomic status, a chance for opportunity for growth, but
    you know part of that rather than just throwing money at a
    system that's actually bloated, we actually have some personal
    responsibility in regarding to cutting costs for non-necessary
    items, non-academic items on campus.
        You go to college to learn. You don't go for all this other
    stuff, and that's what in my opinion has blown the cost of
    tuition and thrown such a burden on our students now. So my
    time is up. Thank you, guys, for coming and I yield back Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you. The next person in
    seniority is the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Manning.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    holding this very important hearing on an issue that is so
    important to my district. I represent a district that has 13
    colleges and community colleges, including three HBCU's, so
    Pell Grants are extremely important to us.
        Chancellor Jones, we know that a critical piece to ensuring
    that students are successful when they transfer from a
    community college to a four-year institution is providing them
    with additional wraparound supports, such as counseling and
    tutoring at their new institution.
        And I had the privilege of sitting on the Board of UNC
    Greensboro, for several years where I observed the kinds of
    supports that they use to help their students succeed. So I
    wonder if you can tell me do you work directly with community
    colleges in your State to recruit transfer students? What
    supports are available to ease the transfer process for Pell
    Grant students, moving from community colleges to your
    institution because I know we can all learn from your
    experience.
        Mr. Jones. Well thank you so much for the question. Yes, we
    have a very active engagement with more than five community
    colleges across the State. We have worked very hard to kind of
    strengthen our articulation agreement, and to transfer pathways
    with those community colleges, so that students when they start
    community college will have a very clear understanding of
    what's required at the end of that 2-year period that basically
    guarantees their admission to the University of Illinois
    Urbana-Champaign.
        And it is something that we are constantly coming back and
    reviewing and tweaking, because you know there are issues
    sometime where a certain student might not quite meet the
    criteria and we're constantly rethinking that.
        But one of the ways that we've strengthened the community
    college pipeline is as you said making sure that pathways are
    clear, and that they have the wraparound services once they get
    it here just like any student that started out here first year.
        I mentioned the Illinois Commitment. One of the beautiful
    things about that Illinois Commitment it's also applicable to
    transfer students from families that make $67,100.00 or less.
    So they are able to come in as second, third-, and fourth-year
    students through the transfer portal to get access to that free
    tuition and fee commitment. We don't just give them 2-years we
    actually give them an additional year.
        So you can transfer in, get free tuition and fees for 3
    years to allow you enough time to complete. That's the critical
    part of what we do. We have on average 1,000 to 1,500 transfer
    students each and every year. A great percentage of those
    students are Pell eligible or Pell students, and so it's a
    critical part of our overarching success in making sure that
    Pell students not only get access, but they get access to a
    degree.
        They graduate at very high rates, and they have very high
    participation rate in what we call first year experiences, or
    first year destination where 93 percent of our students have
    that first destination within 6 months of graduating. So it is
    a very much a part of our overarching commitment providing
    affordable, accessible education to all.
        Mrs. Manning. Wonderful. Thank you, and if you haven't met
    our great Chancellor Frank Gilliam, I hope you have the
    opportunity to do so.
        Mr. Jones. Look forward to it.
        Ms. Manning. Dr. Ortagus, Members of this Committee are
    keenly aware of the importance of increasing degree attainment
    for individual students who will increasingly need post-
    secondary education for access to good jobs. Can you tell us
    about trends in college access at public four-year
    institutions, have we made progress as a nation in expanding
    access to our flagship institutions? And if not, why not?
        Mr. Ortagus. Thank you for the question. There has been
    some progress in the long-run over time, but we aren't
    enrolling enough low-income students. So roughly a third, a
    little over a third of students at public four-years are Pell
    recipients.
        But if you look at the public flagships, it's roughly a
    quarter, so that's clearly not enough students who are Pell
    recipients who are engaging with these institutions that were
    founded to you know serve the communities in which they reside.
    So obviously, we want to do a better job of enrolling and
    educating these low-income students.
        Also importantly because they have extremely high
    graduation rates, and they're incredibly effective at improving
    the quality of students' lives and the labor market outcomes.
    So haven't quite made the progress we want to make for sure.
    There's been a little bit of a decline in recent years, but
    hopefully that will change moving forward for sure.
        Ms. Manning. Thanks so much. My time has expired. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin Mr.
    Grothman.
        Mr. Grothman. Sure. General question first of all for Dr.
    Poliakoff, I hope I got that right, Poliakoff. I think one of
    the concerns that everybody in this room should have is the
    increasing cost of tuition. And I know because of Pell Grants
    and other needs-based grants, some of the lower income people
    are taken care of, but I just ran into the other day into a guy
    who was maybe a family who had more money. I don't know how
    much his parents were willing to help him.
        He was sitting there in his 30's with over 30 grand in
    debt. And obviously, the cost, the little they prepared us for
    here, in the last three decades, if car prices went up as quick
    as tuition the average new car would cost $80,000.00. OK, so
    clearly, they're not running a tight ship at these
    universities.
        But do you believe part of the problem is because some
    people get government grants of some nature it allows the
    universities not to tighten ships, and as a result the middle
    class that has to take out the loans, the amount they have to
    take out keeps going up. Is that a valid concern?
        Mr. Poliakoff. Absolutely Congressman. If one looks at the
    cost calculators online a family of four in the middle class it
    is not going to be the recipient of a whole lot of
    institutional aid, or Federal aid, and that's going to put
    pressure on loans. And I do want to go back to this question,
    the Bennett hypothesis.
        Our research--let's say our literature research shows some
    studies by very, very reliable people in the field, Michael
    McPherson, Martin Shapiro, Ronald Erinburg that suggests that
    it could be up to a $50.00 increase in tuition for every
    hundred dollar increase in aid.
        I would counsel the Committee to look very carefully at the
    study from the New York Fed, and some of these other studies
    before concluding that this is a disease of for-profit
    institutions. It seems to be a disease across all sectors, and
    it's not appropriate to go beating up on for-profits when this
    seems to be something that needs to be addressed holistically.
        Mr. Grothman. Does it bother you ethically that Pell Grants
    are available to people who are low income, but if you're a
    little above low income you're expected to drive yourself 40 or
    50 grand in debt? In other words penalizing you because you, or
    your parents are married, or penalizing you because your
    parents have a job making $45,000.00 or $50,000.00 a year.
        Mr. Poliakoff. I'm more concerned Congressman about the
    effect that these programs seem to have in ratcheting up the
    costs for everybody. I'm deeply committed to the idea of access
    and helping those students in greatest need, but when those
    programs are simply being used as part of a vicious cycle
    whereby, they institute more tuition increases which will be
    particularly problematic for middle class students, something
    is very wrong with the picture. I would also suggest----
        Mr. Grothman. And you said particularly, I want to
    understand. It's particularly troublesome for middle class
    students because they don't get Pell Grants, right? Isn't that
    why this is particularly a bad system for them?
        Mr. Poliakoff. Well that Congressman, and the fact that
    they get so little institutional aid in the calculations--
    [recording breaks off]--so it's really a double effect on them.
    And one thing I wanted to mention to the Committee if I may, it
    is a good idea to go look back at Bowen's Revenue Theory of
    Costs. I keep this pinned to my desk. At any given time the
    unit cost of education is determined by the amount of revenues
    currently available for education relative to enrollment.
        It expresses the fundamental fact that unit cost is
    determined by hard dollars of revenue, and only indirectly and
    distantly by considerations of need, technology, efficiency and
    market wages and prices. So somebody has got to break this
    vicious cycle.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. Here's one more thing I want you to tell
    me what I should say. There's a gal back home. Her kids both
    are 30 grand in debt, and they're working to pay off the debt.
    Her sister did not have a job lived more of the welfare
    lifestyle. Her kids went to college and got no debt.
        What should I tell my constituent who you would argue did
    things right because the current system penalizes her kids?
        Mr. Poliakoff. We've got very fine institutions that have
    operated at pretty modest costs, even lowering tuition, and
    keeping it frozen. It is--I vehemently disagree with the idea
    that college debt is good debt. This is an obstacle to
    marriage, to raising children, to buying a home, and we've got
    to go back to the issue of higher ed being in a spending
    crisis, not a funding crisis.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
        Mr. Scott. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you.
    Gentleman from New York Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones?
        Mr. Jones. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair for convening this
    hearing. Congress signed the Higher Education Act of 1965 into
    law to ensure that any individual, regardless of their
    background or ability to pay could access a college education.
    For over 55 years the Pell Grant program has been a key tool in
    ensuring millions of students from low-income families can
    afford to go to college.
        Nearly 7 million students rely on the Pell Grant program to
    cover the costs of tuition, room and board, school supplies,
    and other fees. Yet despite their proven success, Pell Grants
    now cover a small and shrinking share of college costs for
    students who receive them.
        In 1975 Pell used to cover almost 80 percent of a college
    education, but since then it's purchasing power has eroded
    significantly, and today Pell only covers 29 percent of a
    college education. As we've already discussed Federal financial
    aid has not kept pace with the rising cost of tuition, making
    it increasingly difficult for low-income students to access a
    post-secondary degree.
        It's also the case that when students go to college they
    don't just have to pay for tuition and fees, they also need to
    cover the cost of things like transportation, housing and food
    which have increased at a pace that Pell Grants have not kept
    up with. A study conducted by the National College Attainment
    Network found that only 25 percent of public----
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones could you suspend for just
    a minute. I understand from the technician that the livestream
    has incurred some difficulty, so we have to suspend for just a
    moment.
        Mr. Jones. Sure.
        [Pause]
        Mr. Scott.--[recording comes back in] I understand from our
    technicians that we're back livestreaming, and so we'll
    recognize the gentleman from New York Mr. Jones, thank you.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to quickly re-
    summarize. Congress passed the Higher Education Act of 1965 to
    ensure that any individual regardless of their background or
    ability to pay can access a college education. But a study
    conducted by the National College Attainment Network found that
    only 25 percent of public four-year institutions were
    affordable to Pell Grant recipients.
        This is among the many reasons why I, along with my
    colleagues have called for the maximum Pell Grant to be doubled
    and tied to inflation. Chancellor Jones, how would the
    proposals in the American Families Plan, and the Pell Grant
    Preservation and Expansion Act that Congress is considering,
    help restore the promise of the Higher Education Act?
        Mr. Jones. Thank you very much Representative for the
    opportunity to respond to that question. I think the commitment
    to really increase Pell is essentially getting the money back
    in the hands of the students that need it to the most to ensure
    accessibility to an affordable education. And as I said in my
    oral and my written testimony the Pell Grant is absolutely the
    foundation on which universities, like the University of
    Illinois have been able to increase the investment of its own
    resources.
        And here in Illinois we are very proud of the fact that
    we've increased institutional commitment for financial aid by
    more than almost 50 million dollars in the 5-years that I've
    been here. And during the period where we received significant
    budget cuts, and we were able to hold tuition flat for six out
    of those 7 years. So I think it speaks against some of the
    narratives about a direct link between Pell and the driving
    cost of tuition.
        And so I guess my main point to answer your question is
    that with a doubling of the Pell, or even tripling it if that
    were possible, we're certainly leveraging the institutional
    commitment that we are putting on the table to keep education
    accessible and affordable.
        It really means that we already have a very good rate
    relative to our peers, but it would provide the opportunity for
    us to do even more for students from middle to low-income
    backgrounds to get a world class education at an affordable
    price. Because we're doing our part, and I know many of my
    fellow institutions are doing their part, and so doubling Pell
    would really allow us to leverage institutional resources,
    which State resources to provide a world class education, and
    minimize the number of students that graduate with substantial
    debt.
        We're very proud that here in Illinois most of our
    students, the majority graduate with little or no debt. Those
    that have debt, which is about 4--something percent of our
    students, the debt that they graduate with is significantly
    below the national average. On average our students only
    graduate with about $24,000.00 in debt.
        And why are we able to do this? How are we able to do this?
    It is because the basic foundation that Pell provides for us to
    leverage our own institutional resources to keep higher
    education accessible and affordable, and the main thing I can't
    emphasize enough are the outcomes.
        We are very committed to narrowing the gap, and we already
    have one of the best rates in the country. There should be no
    gap between the graduation rates of Pell students as it relates
    to the majority of students, and we are absolutely committed on
    destroying that gap, but we need Pell, we need our own
    institutional resources to get us there.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Tennessee Ms.
    Harshbarger.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Chairman, Scott, and thank you
    to all the witnesses today. I'm like Dr. Miller-Meeks. You
    know, I went to school, and I had to get any grant that I could
    get, and anything I could possibly find that would help me pay
    for tuition. You know Dr. Poliakoff across the country, and
    I've talked to people here recently. We've seen these
    universities go crazy with initiatives to draw students in,
    like lazy rivers, they put extravagant restaurants in, they
    change the dorm structures, just to attract these elusive
    seniors to come in and do their four-year university bid at
    their school.
        And you know as well as well I do, that raises tuition. And
    I guess my question is this. What do you say to these college
    Presidents about tuition going up because of that? And should
    the U.S. Government do anything, or change the way they
    federally fund these universities when the tuition keeps going
    up?
        And if you would, what kind of metric would you put in
    place to help these guys and guide them to change that tuition
    structure sir?
        Mr. Poliakoff. Thank you Representative Harshbarger. One of
    the things that can grow out of the study that we did,
    howcollegesspendmoney.com which is online is getting the sense
    for what's customary. I'm not saying it's reasonable, but
    what's customary for the ratio of administration to
    instructional expenditure.
        And that could well be an accountability metric used. And
    many states track classroom utilization, which is actually a
    very good thing before the State makes a commitment at public
    universities to build new buildings. It is a disgrace that on
    so many campuses Friday is a dead zone, as Wells Hall a trustee
    from the Board of Regents at Texas said, ``You could fire a
    cannon through any of our classroom buildings on Friday and not
    hit anybody.'' That's a waste of taxpayer money and it corrupts
    students to think that the real world is 4 days a week and
    starts at 10 o'clock in the morning.
        And when the building boom continues that way, it wastes
    money, and it corrupts. So there are places where the Federal
    Government and State government can be far more discerning in
    how money is being used, and you know if I may say about lazy
    rivers, I don't mean to be belligerent about Louisiana State
    University, but their tuition and fees went up 95 percent
    between 2010 and 2019, and they spent 85 million dollars on a
    new recreation center.
        Now some part of that might be private money, but anytime
    you build a new building it's the gift that keeps on taking
    because of maintenance, which might actually be the same amount
    of money as the cost of construction. This is not good
    leadership, and ACTA certainly calls Boards of Trustees to
    account, and urges State legislatures to be vigilant about
    that.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Well I absolutely agree. You know if I
    was a business owner and I had some type of funding from the
    Federal Government, and I knew it was coming and they were
    going to give me more, of course. Do you think I'm going to
    lower the price? More than likely not.
        So you know I'm looking at it from that perspective, for
    heaven's sakes, if you learn that you're going to get more
    money from them, it's generally not going to be an issue, is
    it? You're going to keep those prices the same, or you're going
    to go up.
        Mr. Poliakoff. Exactly right. Senator Hank Brown, former
    Senator from Colorado--I was just reviewing what he said before
    this hearing. In most economic models if prices rise, fewer
    consumers with limited resources can afford your services, and
    thus market forces limit your ability to increase the cost to
    consumer.
        In higher ed however, government grants and loans help
    cover the increasing prices for those with limited resources,
    hence we've just fallen into the trap of Bowen's Law and have
    supported bad habits that will, as Congressman said, fall
    heavily on the backs of the middle class in particular.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Well I absolutely agree, and as far as
    I'm concerned there needs to be accountability. We want to help
    those students who need help but boy, we don't want to continue
    to give to a bloated environment because the prices just
    continue to go up. And I appreciate you and I know my time's
    up, and I yield back Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from New York Mr.
    Bowman.
        Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Suriel thank you
    for your testimony today and speaking on behalf of so many
    college going New Yorkers with a particular focus on the CUNY
    system. I also want to thank you for the work you do as a youth
    counselor coordinator. My district includes parts of the Bronx
    and Westchester which also includes CUNY campuses. Our focus
    today is on the Pell Grant, and I want to start with a question
    about the FAFSA, because to get a Pell Grant you had to fill
    out the FAFSA first.
        Unfortunately, if a student isn't aware of the FAFSA, or
    doesn't have the support they need to fill it out, they might
    take out a private loan when they could qualify for a Pell
    Grant. Last year Congress took significant steps to simplify
    the FAFSA, make it easier for students to apply. Can you share
    what your experience was like filling out the FAFSA?
        Do you know of any peers who maybe didn't know about the
    FAFSA, or didn't know where to go for help in filling it out?
        Ms. Suriel. Thank you so much Congress Member Bowman. Thank
    you for your question, and also thank you for everything you've
    done for education, especially as an educator. For me I've
    always had a complicated relationship with FAFSA. As a first-
    generation immigrant and student, I am the first in my family
    to go to college.
        My mother doesn't even speak English, so for the most part
    I had to figure out FAFSA by myself. Now I am a student at the
    Goddard Riverside Option Center where they provide additional
    support for things like FAFSA. But one of my personal
    experiences, there was a semester, my fall 2017 semester, where
    I was having trouble with my FAFSA, and I thought I completed
    it, but I did not. I ended up not getting any aid that year,
    and actually accumulating tuition debt.
        I also, due to similar circumstances, that I was also
    balancing my job at Best Buy and schoolwork, and trying to
    navigate everything, I also ended up losing my FAFSA due to my
    GPA dropping.
        Those two circumstances basically forced me into having to
    take a year and a half gap year, to not only pay off this
    tuition debt that ended up going to collections and increasing,
    but also trying to get my FAFSA back, which I was not
    successful at doing. If it wasn't for the help of the Goddard
    Riverside Option Center, which is a community-based
    organization, and also help with my mother, and also what I say
    to my job, I would not have been able to go back to school.
        As I mentioned my GPA did drop to a 1.7, but because of
    their help I was able to go back to school and bring it back up
    to a 3.5, and that's what I'm trying to say, that students need
    the support. A lot of the things that I'm hearing today is
    about accountability, and I completely agree.
        Students need to see this money, but most of the time we're
    not a part of the decisions of where these Federal grants go.
    If there was a way for this money to be distributed to
    students, I don't believe there would be so much problems with
    tuition debt and things of that nature.
        But as for FAFSA yes, I do know a lot of peers who either
    do not know how to fill out their FAFSA, struggle with it, and
    actually have stopped going to school because of it, so it is
    something that does deter a lot of students when it comes to
    degree completion.
        Mr. Bowman. It sounds like our high schools need to be
    doing a lot more to support students in terms of FAFSA and
    post-secondary opportunities, beginning even as early as ninth
    grade, and you know, based on my experience in education, I
    know, often times you may have one school counselor to hundreds
    and hundreds of students. So there's not enough resources there
    to provide the support that students need.
        Can you speak a little bit about that? Like what more could
    high schools be doing to support students in post-secondary
    opportunities, whether it's college or careers? And you could
    speak about it through the lens of FAFSA if you don't mind.
        Ms. Suriel. Absolutely, absolutely. Yes, I totally agree. I
    think high schools need to start talking about college, and
    also other post-secondary options as young as possible in ninth
    grade, and not wait until the end of junior year, the beginning
    of senior year.
        As for school counselors, personally in my high school we
    had a guidance counselor, a different guidance counselor every
    year, so it was hard to build a relationship, and it was one
    guidance counselor for over 500 students. Therefore, if you
    weren't in the top 10 percent of students performing, chances
    are you weren't getting support. And like I said I got a lot
    more support from CBO's than I did from my own high school.
        I also believe that high schools need to support parents.
    They need to like support parents in terms of helping them fill
    out these FAFSA applications, especially parents who may not
    have digital literacy, parents who are immigrants and may not
    understand the language, and the jargon also needs to be a lot
    more accessible as well to parents and students.
        Mr. Bowman. Ms. Suriel, you're awesome. Thank you so much
    for your testimony. Mr. Chairman I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. I understand the Ranking Member of
    the full Committee is seeking recognition. I understand the
    Ranking Member of the full Committee is seeking recognition. If
    so, Dr. Foxx you're recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
    for being with us today. I appreciated Mr. Poliakoff. I
    appreciate your comments about the lack of oversight around
    what colleges and universities are doing with the student aid
    dollars they're receiving.
        Your testimony notes that there are some institutions that
    are being better stewards of taxpayer funds. Can you describe
    what characteristics ``good institutions'' have in terms of
    providing appropriate academic support to Pell Grant students?
    Are those good characteristics common to all those
    institutions, or are they more about what works on that
    particular campus?
        Mr. Poliakoff. Thank you, Representative Foxx. One of the
    really positive initiatives that I've seen is the innovation
    alliance with schools like Perdue, Arizona State University,
    New Mexico, and others. They have really begun to use
    predictive analytics in order to spot the needs of students, so
    many unfortunately do arrive with academic deficiencies.
        And certainly President Michael Crow has done a great job
    in working with his faculty to address the bottleneck courses
    where so many students just get discouraged and leave, these
    being engineering, mathematics courses, things that are just so
    important for really productive careers.
        This is so much better than what happens too often at
    universities which is that cynically students are accepted who
    are not college ready, not prepared to make it, whose
    ambitions, and whose finances will be shattered by having been
    used as a revenue stream for 1 year without the mechanisms for
    ensuring their success.
        Hence, I really do look seriously at the schools that have
    used new technologies to be able to get help to students
    quickly.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Another question, one of the big
    issues that the committees will look at in reauthorization is
    accreditation. I share some sympathy with institutions trying
    to innovate in ways that allow them to deliver the content in a
    more cost-effective manner.
        Can you talk about what you see as the problems with the
    current accreditation constraints, and how students could
    benefit with some revisions to the accreditation process. And
    if you could be succinct, I have one more question I would like
    to ask.
        Mr. Poliakoff. Yes. Transparency is crucial. Accreditation
    is sometimes called a Good Housekeeping seal of approval, and
    that binary distinction is applied to schools with appalling
    low graduation rates who don't do a good job by their students.
    That just misleads the public.
        So one thing we need to do is to be able to get that
    information out and maybe ultimately severing Title IV access
    from the accreditation system of peer review would be an
    important step forward.
        Ms. Foxx. Well thank you very much. There are a number of
    states that have started to demand more of institutions, or
    students in return for State institutional aid or State grant
    aid respectively. Have you had the opportunity to review the
    effectiveness of these State policies?
        Mr. Poliakoff. Well Florida is a really good example
    because of the effectiveness of the Board of Governors which
    actually will control performance-based funding to the campuses
    based on how they meet certain metrics. And we've seen a post-
    secondary education performance fund in Kentucky.
        There are initiatives that really have moved this forward.
    Again, I don't want to tout my own organization's work, but our
    publication Bold Leadership Real Reform gives some pretty good
    examples of such initiatives.
        Ms. Foxx. Well thank you very much. I want to say that the
    comments you made about the attitude of institutions about
    we'll just use a colloquial term, ``flunking'' people out after
    1 year without being concerned about their future, is something
    we've seen for too long in post-secondary education.
        I saw it when I was a student and I talked to recent
    students who say they still see it. And we have to stop that.
    If institutions admit students, they have an obligation to
    admit only students who can make it, and then if they admit
    students who can't make it to do better.
        I worked with programs when I was at Appalachian State
    University that did that, and we had very good success rate,
    even with students who are marginal, who were admitted, but I
    appreciate your comments very much, and again I thank all our
    witnesses for being here. Thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back.
        Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin,
    Mr. Pocan.
        Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
    the witnesses. As the Chairman said he and I have a bill to
    double Pell Grants to increase Pell eligibility to Dreamers, to
    add six semesters of help, and if I can just in the beginning
    there's a few things I just want to say one.
        Our Ranking Member, I do have to respectfully disagree with
    your analysis that colleges are the major beneficiaries, not
    students, of Pell Grants. As someone who got a Pell Grant, and
    probably wouldn't have been able to go to college without a
    Pell Grant, I was a beneficiary more than University of
    Wisconsin Madison, because that allowed me to get that
    education.
        In fact, when you say that about universities, the
    University of Wisconsin Madison was under a legislative freeze
    on tuition, and they lifted that freeze this year and guess
    what? U of W Madison still froze tuition for in-State residents
    because it's not about just having more money for the
    university, it's about getting money for students so that they
    can go to college. I just want to mention that.
        I think one of the things that was kind of inferred a few
    times was that not everyone should have to go to college. And I
    agree, there's apprenticeships, there's other things that
    people can do. But if you want to go to college finances
    shouldn't be what holds you back, and that's the problem with
    that argument is you're essentially saying poor people should
    be in some kind of a caste system and not be able to go to
    college, and only wealthy people can.
        And I have a fundamental problem with that as I'm sure does
    Dr. Ortagus who mentioned he was a Pell recipient, and Ms.
    Suriel, who's a Pell recipient. I mean it's what gave us the
    opportunities to be able to do this. So Ms. Suriel let me start
    with you, and then I'll go to Dr. Ortagus, since we're fellow
    Pell Grant recipients.
        Would you have been able to go to college without that
    money?
        Ms. Suriel. Absolutely not. I could have just dreamed about
    it.
        Mr. Pocan. How about you Dr. Ortagus?
        Mr. Ortagus. I could have gone to college. I had a broad-
    based Mayor Dade Scholarship from the State of Florida, but my
    success in college was directly relevant to the increase in
    need-based aid.
        Mr. Pocan. Did you work while you were in college as well
    Dr. Ortagus?
        Mr. Ortagus. Yes. I'm embarrassed to admit that my first
    year I did not have a Pell Grant. I didn't know what I was
    doing, so I was working exorbitant hours, and then the second,
    third and four-year I was able to kind of leverage that need-
    based aid accordingly, but yes.
        Mr. Pocan. And Dr.--I called you Dr. Suriel, maybe you'll
    be a doctor someday, but Ms. Suriel I know you mentioned you
    also work, and so did I. I bartended and worked often until 2
    in the morning and then got up and started classes the next
    day, and I never took a spring break when my friends did
    because I was busy working so I could pay for school.
        Ms. Suriel another thing that's been talked about is that
    the graduation rates aren't as high for Pell recipients, as
    though that somehow is a significant problem. Well I think you
    know, as Chancellor Jones said, there's wraparound programs we
    can do to help, but I took a semester off during school to help
    my dad because I didn't get support from my parents, and that's
    what happens when you come up in a working-class family, you
    mentioned some challenges.
        Can you just talk a little bit more about the challenges
    you had because one of the things we're trying to do is add six
    semesters of Pell, so that people who may switch colleges, or
    have other life experiences that you know, just so you know Ms.
    Suriel, half of my colleagues are millionaires.
        Nothing wrong with millionaires, but they have a little
    different life experience perhaps than you and I. Could you
    just talk a little bit about why that's important?
        Ms. Suriel. Yes absolutely. I want to refer to an earlier
    comment made by Ranking Member Murphy about certain non-
    academic costs. I feel like there are costs that even though
    they may not be directly related to academics such as books,
    per se, they do affect academics, such as, as I said
    transportation.
        How can you excel at school if you cannot get to school?
    Such as food. If you are a student that is taking three to four
    classes in a day, and you have maybe an hour of a gap hour. So
    for example, me--the Borough of Manhattan Community College is
    located in Tribeca, one of the most affluent neighborhoods in
    New York City.
        Food was not affordable, nor accessible to us, and neither
    was it affordable in the cafeteria. If there was a program that
    distributed transportation costs where the Pell Grant can
    assess the transportation costs of a student or can give them a
    certain amount of money for books or for meal swipes, just like
    they do in the SUNY program.
        I think these kinds of resources would actually help a lot
    of students not only attain a degree but feel as though they
    have been supported throughout their college journey.
        Mr. Pocan. Yes. For many students the majority of your
    expenses are not tuition, it's all the other expenses to go to
    college, right? What's your expected major? What are you hoping
    to major in?
        Ms. Suriel. So I'm majoring in political science, with a
    minor in Latin American studies.
        Mr. Pocan. Great. And are you thinking about any additional
    education after your bachelor's degree, or not sure yet?
        Ms. Suriel. Yes, I hope to do my master's degree
    afterwards.
        Mr. Pocan. Awesome. Well you're awesome, thank you so much
    for being here today and best wishes to you, I yield back.
        Ms. Suriel. Thank you.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Next, we have the gentlelady from
    Louisiana Ms. Letlow.
        Ms. Letlow. All the witnesses thank you for taking the time
    to testify before the Committee today. In the Fifth District of
    Louisiana many students benefit from Pell Grants. Pell Grants
    help make a college degree attainable by providing key
    financial aid for students. I see the value in supporting
    students who demonstrate true financial need to attend college,
    so they can achieve their dreams and enter the workforce
    prepared to take on their careers.
        However, as a former university administrator I've also
    unfortunately seen abuse of the financial aid system. I've
    witnessed students use government aid for use on non-school
    related expenses. These scenarios concern me when these
    resources are meant for a specific school cost, like tuition,
    room and board and books.
        There should be better oversight on how these funds are
    spent. While I'm glad we're discussing how Pell Grants can
    benefit our students, I have reservations about the policy
    ideas of doubling the maximum Pell Grant award, and expanding
    semester eligibility for another six semesters, especially when
    I've seen first-hand misuse of financial aid funds.
        Some students may not want to choose a four-year degree
    path. They may be more inclined to attend community college or
    a trade school, where they can be prepared for skilled
    occupations in a specific field. These careers are often in
    high demand and are good-paying jobs.
        My question is for Dr. Poliakoff. What would you say about
    the impression that students need a four-year degree from a
    university or college so they can be successful in their
    careers? How can Congress remove the stigma?
        Mr. Poliakoff. Well Representative that is such a crucial
    question. And perhaps part of it is informational on the number
    of four-year college graduates who leave college with lots of
    debt, and relatively limited career possibilities. How many of
    them would have been far better off doing a 2-year degree, or
    career training that can articulate ultimately into a four-year
    degree if appropriate.
        I remember back when I was Deputy Secretary of Education of
    Pennsylvania, and I toured Harrisburg Area Community College,
    and President Edna Baehre was explaining to me--this is back in
    the 90's, that the graduates of their respiratory therapy
    program were being hired right out of it at $28,000.00 a year
    which then in Pennsylvania was quite a great wage.
        And as I mentioned earlier, she was seeing a lot of reverse
    transfers from four-year institutions to Harrisburg Area
    Community College in order to get the kind of career skills
    they needed. A four-year degree can be a wonderful, wonderful
    thing, both for career and citizenship, but until four-year
    institutions reinstitute a real core curriculum that's full of
    the fundamental skills, and cut-out a lot of the fluff, they're
    not serving students well.
        This is one of the reasons my organization has really
    advocated looking seriously at a 90-credit hour Baccalaureate
    degree major core curriculum and get people out into workforce
    for further training.
        Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much for that answer. I yield back
    my remaining time to Ranking Member Foxx. I yield back
    Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you and next we have the
    gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much Chairman Scott, and
    Subcommittee Ranking Member Murphy for this important hearing,
    and thank you to our witnesses. There's a growing college
    affordability crisis in this country, and it started long
    before the pandemic.
        Tuition and fees continue to rise while the amount of
    financial assistance available to students fails to keep pace.
    I was on my own when I went to college. I was able to work my
    through first at community college, then college, then law
    school, all with a combination of grants, loans, and work
    study. And I worked every year.
        I was able to repay the manageable amount of debt I had
    even while working in public space, but unfortunately this is
    not the experience for far too many students across the
    country. A few weeks ago it was an honor to welcome Education
    Secretary Cardona to northwest Oregon.
        And we spoke with community college students and
    administrators, and they made clear that adequate financial aid
    was a lifeline to keep them enrolled, especially during the
    pandemic. We spoke with RJ, a student from Chemeketa Community
    College and he told us about how federally funded direct aid
    provided him with financial stability. It allowed him to pay
    electricity and rent, and therefore stay in school.
        We know that the Pell Grant delivers critical financial
    support to make college accessible, especially for our most
    historically disenfranchised students. So by increasing Pell
    Grant funding we will help more students be able to reach their
    higher education goals.
        So my questions are for Dr. Ortagus. In your testimony you
    discuss some of the institutional efforts to improve access and
    student success. So based on your research, what institutional
    efforts have been most helpful in supporting, retaining, and
    graduating Pell Grant recipients, and what can the Federal
    Government do to support or expand these efforts--these
    successful efforts.
        Mr. Ortagus. Sure. So what I did reference in my own
    research I talked about folks who had left college without
    getting a degree. We were able to induce them to return to
    college by offering financial support as well as trying to
    simplify the re-enrollment process.
        Beyond that when thinking about retention or degree
    completion components, I reference the CUNY ASAP model and that
    had really nice mechanisms associated with like high touch
    advising and wraparound services that were referenced earlier
    today. Not only the financial side for textbook assistance,
    they call it tuition and fee gap funds that were outlined as
    well, but they would really have a nice total support for the
    student and that was found to nearly double graduation rates
    for a really empirically rigorous study where they were
    randomly assigning folks to the CUNY ASAP relative to the
    control group.
        So really compelling evidence of the benefit of
    informational and financial barriers being addressed through
    those wraparound services.
        Ms. Bonamici. But it really does make a difference if I
    support Trio and Gear Up and programs that help with retention,
    particularly for first generation students. We have a great
    program in Oregon called Future Connect, and it's a mentoring
    program and the students who actively go through the program
    they act as mentors. It really makes a difference.
        And Dr. Ortagus I was encouraged to see that President
    Biden's American Families Plan incorporates many aspects of the
    America's College Promise Act, including a Federal/State
    partnership to provide tuition free community college, and a
    dedicated stream of funding for increasing student success, and
    tuition subsidies for students at Historically Black colleges
    and universities, tribal colleges and universities, and
    minority serving institutions.
        So based on you research, what benefits should we expect
    for students and communities if Congress were to provide the
    funds necessary to make the tuition free community college a
    reality nationwide?
        Mr. Ortagus. Sure. So I'll talk about like the broader
    academic literature and what we've seen in a relatively new
    area of scholarship. One is that we look at the Tennessee
    Program. It's been found to reduce student loan debt. There
    have also been rigorous studies looking at increases in
    students of color as far as enrolling at those community
    colleges, and increases, specifically with Hispanic and Native
    American students, and their likelihood to go earn a bachelor's
    degree.
        So there are some significant academic outcomes, enrollment
    outcomes, and financial outcomes that are a benefit when trying
    to provide that affordability or tuition free guarantee for a
    sector that is serving overwhelmingly a large share of low-
    income students.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And in the brief time we have
    remaining, how can we make sure that tuition free community
    college works in conjunction with four-year institutions to
    strengthen opportunities for all students?
        Mrs. Ortagus. Yes. The biggest thing is we referenced
    earlier articulation agreements. I want to briefly say that I
    have read arguments about concerns about it cutting into the
    market share of public four-years, and that's just kind of a
    red herring, and not based in empirical fact.
        I've conducted studies, well with my colleagues looking
    that whenever resources are given to community colleges, or if
    they even offered targeted bachelor's programs, there's
    decreases in for-profit enrollment, but not actually for public
    four-year enrollment.
        Ms. Bonamici. And what about private colleges?
        Mr. Ortagus. Excuse me?
        Ms. Bonamici. What about the private, for example liberal
    arts colleges, does it affect them? Same as public----
        Mr. Ortagus. Yes, basically the general relationship is
    when resources are given to community colleges. The research
    that I'm indicating is not affecting public four-year, and was
    affecting private for-profit, I did not see a statistically
    significant relationship in our own work with the private non-
    profits such as liberal arts colleges.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I'd be interested in getting that
    new material submitted for the record. Thank you Mr. Chairman I
    yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. I understand there's some other
    republican Members expected, but they're not on the platform
    yet. If not, I recognize myself for questions. Mr. Ortagus you
    mentioned a study that showed that if you spend more money, the
    graduation rate went up. Can you say a little bit about this
    study, how much money and what it was spent on?
        Mr. Ortagus. Yes. So the general in reference to what you
    were talking about, I don't remember the exact like amount or
    allocation, but I can just say there's an overwhelming amount
    of evidence related to of course as you provide aid to
    students, they're more likely to graduate.
        There are also studies on the cost side for institutions
    showing that if institutions spend money specifically on
    instructional spending, or student services, there are positive
    implications for graduation rates. So those are kind of the two
    overarching points I was trying to make in the point you're
    referencing.
        Mr. Scott. We've referenced the initiative to double the
    Pell Grant. If we double the Pell Grant, how close will we come
    to the good old days when we covered about 79 percent of the
    costs of going to a State college.
        Mr. Ortagus. It wouldn't quite be that close. It would be
    moving in the right direction. It wouldn't quite be, you know,
    nearly 80 percent coverage, but it would be moving for sure in
    the right direction given that currently it's roughly 29
    percent for all the public four-year costs.
        And I just think when you look at the empirical literature
    I referenced about the benefits of increasing need-based aid in
    conjunction with the Pell Grant, which was a study in Texas,
    really convincing and compelling outcomes in relation to not
    only the academic outcomes, but also the estimation and the
    analysis that it can pay for itself within 10 years.
        These are really important points when talking about the
    merits of this type of policy.
        Mr. Scott. And how does it pay for itself?
        Mr. Ortagus. Through tax expenditures, so obviously if we
    give folks higher wages or earnings through the labor market,
    it can be beneficial to the government providing that
    opportunity to engage higher education in that way. And I'll be
    happy to share that study on the record.
        Mr. Scott. Yes, please do because when you say pay for
    itself, you mean the Federal budget gets the money back to pay
    for it, not that in society people get better wages and all
    kinds of esoteric stuff, but the Federal Government actually
    gets the money to pay the money back, is that what you're
    saying?
        Mr. Ortagus. Yes, to be clear, this was a study in Texas,
    it was talking about State government, but the implication is
    could it make sense financially for a government body to
    provide this type of increase in need-based aid. That's
    separate from the substantial labor market improvements as far
    as earnings separate from all of the positive outcomes of a
    college education.
        I'm merely referencing the potential to go recoup that
    investment through increased expenditures as far as taxes.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Jones, you mentioned several
    times wraparound services, what does wraparound mean?
        Mr. Jones. Like wraparound in the context of the kind of
    experiences we provide students once we get them admitted to
    the university, once we provide the financial packages that
    allows them to enroll. The work can certainly not stop there.
    You've got to have a kind of tutoring advising services.
        A lot of the things that tutored you know kind of behind
    the screen if you will that makes sure that these students are
    academically successful, and that if they find themselves
    having challenges, whether it's academically or financially,
    those challenges can be addressed.
        And it can't just be a one-shot deal. The way it works here
    at the university is that we provide these services for four
    years to assure that the Pell eligible low-income students have
    not only get access to the university, but they graduate. And
    it's been shown to be very critically important.
        Our first year to second year retention rates are about 92
    percent for unrepresented students, and even the third and
    fourth year they remain very, very high, and that's why we have
    one of the highest graduation rates among first generation and
    under-represented students in the country.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Jones, we talked about free community
    college. If your goal is a four-year degree, is it helpful to
    start with a two-year community college, or much more
    advantageous to start with the four-year college itself?
        Mr. Jones. Well Representative let me say after having
    spent 4 years as the President of SUNY Albany and valued the
    proposition when I was President of SUNY Albany, I was very
    pleased to learn that 48 percent of the students that walked
    across the stage at SUNY Albany started out at a community
    college, and that's one of the value propositions about the
    relationship between community colleges and four-year
    institutions in the State of New York.
        We have the same kind of aspirational goals as I've said
    here where we have pathways and articulation agreements that
    ensure that students ? that if that is the best choice for you
    as a student, is that the most practical and economic choice
    for you to make to ultimately receive a four-year degree, we
    fully support that, and that's why we work so hard to have
    seamless up-front very transparent articulation agreement with
    community colleges across the State of Illinois.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. My time is expired, but I ask
    unanimous consent to put in two reports, one report, one
    article. A report from Education Reform Now, which highlighted
    the low Pell enrollment at several Virginia public institutions
    of higher education, and an article from The Hill that
    illustrates that the problem is not specific to Virginia, but a
    nationwide problem. Without objection those two--the article
    and the report will be entered into the record.
        Mr. Scott. Next, we have my colleague from Virginia, Mr.
    Good.
        Mr. Good. I thought I was your esteemed colleague from
    Virginia sir.
        Mr. Scott. Distinguished colleague, OK, my distinguished
    colleague.
        Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    recognition and the opportunity to address the group and thank
    you to our witnesses. As someone who came from a lower income
    family, who had to work all of my life, my parents were not
    able to help me at all with college, and so I had to work my
    way through.
        I was the beneficiary of a Pell Grant, and without a Pell
    Grant college would have been out of reach for me, so I'm
    thankful for that opportunity that was provided to me to work
    my way through school. Dr. Poliakoff, I want to thank you for
    being here and testifying to this Subcommittee, and I
    appreciate your testimony, your honest approach to this issue.
        But I have concerns about that the approach from the other
    side that they're taking on the Pell Grant issue, and we
    continue to see the same democrat playbook--to throw more money
    at a problem and hope that will fix it, hope that will make it
    work finally.
        And that's just what H.R. 3946 would do by doubling the
    Pell Grant by Fiscal Year 2027. Not to mention the equally
    concerning provision making illegal aliens eligible for Pell
    Grant funding. Talk about further incentivizing these illegal
    border crossings, when we continue to provide benefits to
    illegal aliens, including a desire to make these--doubling the
    Pell Grants available to illegal aliens.
        Dr. Poliakoff, should every prospective college student
    receive doubled Pell Grant funding in your opinion?
        Mr. Poliakoff. I do not believe that it would be prudent or
    appropriate to discuss that before digging into the
    accountability measures. Resources are finite, and they are
    particularly finite for education. And it is necessary to dig
    into indeed the work of Third Way, a center left organization,
    why are there over 200 schools with a 25 percent graduation
    rate for Pell students?
        What are best practices? What are worst practices? That
    work hasn't been done. I'd also like to see if I may be so
    bold, I'd like to see this Committee look into the idea of how
    we reinvent higher education.
        The costs will continue to grow, and once again I think we
    need to take that report from the New York Fed very seriously,
    that with increased loans and increased Pell Grants tuition
    just goes up as Bowen predicted years ago.
        This is a vicious cycle, and as important as it is that we
    provide funding for the students who need it to get to college,
    we've got to be very careful of where those dollars are going.
        Mr. Good. Thank you, sir. I'm very concerned, as I think
    many, at least on our side are, on the runaway costs of college
    education and the explosion of spending and costs related to
    non-academic purposes, or in my view, non-appropriate purposes.
    And a one size fits all approach of this puts the students
    last, American students last in our education system--a system
    that has bloated salaries for tenured teachers, administrative
    staff.
        In fact a 2020 report stated that in 2019, 19 public
    university Presidents or Chancellors made over a million
    dollars, while the average salary for public university
    Presidents was over $500,000.00, $544,136.00 to be exact. Dr.
    Poliakoff are you concerned by these bloated administrative
    salaries in public ed, and how it corresponds to the rising
    tuition costs I would submit?
        And can you recommend to us on the Committee on some ways
    that we might want to attack the runaway costs of college and
    help students be able to afford it?
        Mr. Poliakoff. Thank you for that crucial question. It is
    destructive of the budget, and destructive of morale for
    leadership to be so far out of the range of even a full
    professor's salary. It is unseemly. And good leadership will
    back away from such practices.
        Moreover, if we use--fully utilize the data that's
    available from National Center for Education Statistics that we
    have analyzed in our howcollegesspendmoney.com website, it
    becomes possible to see what is customary, and as I said
    before, not necessarily reasonable, but what is customary for
    the ratio of admin to instructional spending?
        And it would be very appropriate to begin to make that an
    accountability metric.
        Mr. Good. Thank you, you're right on time. I appreciate
    your response and thanks for being with us today. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. The next person to be recognized is
    the last Member on the Committee that hasn't been recognized
    and that's Mrs. McClain. Mr. Morelle will be recognized as a
    non-Committee Member after all of the Committee Members have
    been recognized. So we'll now recognize the gentlelady from
    Michigan, Mrs. McClain.
        Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Poliakoff, can I
    start with just a simple question, is do you believe a four-
    year degree is the only pathway for success for students in the
    workplace?
        Mr. Poliakoff. Absolutely not.
        Mrs. McClain. So my question is there seems to be a
    disconnect right? The workforce, at least the people in my
    district, is clamoring for people with skilled trades, yet our
    four-year college degrees don't always match those needs, which
    is what's happening right now.
        Is there any reason right now why we can't use that Pell
    Grant? Because right now the Pell Grant is only for the two and
    the four-year colleges, correct? Is there any reason why we
    couldn't use those Pell Grants to actually fill that skilled
    trades gap for some shorter period of institutional
    certificates or what not?
        Mr. Poliakoff. This is a very, very important frontier, and
    on career training, whether it's for profit or non-profit that
    has good accountability measures and good metrics, is an
    entirely appropriate place for Federal money. Getting people
    into family sustaining wages, and very often with a pathway
    should they ever want to go back to four-year institutions.
        Mrs. McClain. So you would be open to using some of those
    Federal funds to really bridge--on the Pell Grant, to really
    bridge that gap for accredited certified programs, obviously,
    less than a four-year, or a 2-year traditional college
    perspective.
        Mr. Poliakoff. Yes. And----
        Mrs. McClain. Thank you, sir. With that I yield my time
    back. Thank you.
        Mr. Scott. The gentlelady's time has expired, she yielded
    back. Now we've got finally to Mr. Morelle, the gentleman from
    New York.
        Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, first of all for
    allowing me, although I'm not a Member of this Subcommittee,
    I'm obviously an excited Member of the Education and Labor
    Committee, and you've done me an honor to let me just speak for
    a few moments, so thank you and Chairman Wilson for having what
    I think is a really, really important issue about Pell Grants.
        And I very much appreciate the witnesses sharing their
    stories and their perspective. I want to acknowledge the former
    SUNY Albany President. I served a long time in the State
    legislature on the Higher Education Committee, and I have a
    son, Nicholas, who has a degree from SUNY Albany, so I
    appreciate you for all of your work and I'm sorry we've lost
    you to Illinois, but I know you're doing great work there.
        And to Ms. Suriel who is from I think is from the Bronx,
    but then studying in Manhattan, so as a New Yorker, I'm
    grateful for the great representation from the great State of
    New York. But I wanted to focus in on a specific thing as it
    relates to Pell Grants. I'm very supporting of expanding Pell
    Grants. I think they're critically important.
        I appreciate Representative Good's story, and other's
    stories about who have used Pell Grants, and it's really made a
    significant difference in their life. I wanted to talk about
    students with disabilities, and the question about the
    requirement of full caseloads in order to qualify for Pell.
        And in many cases folks who have disabilities are
    struggling with some of the challenges of that and need
    additional time to complete course work for graduation, but the
    obstacles they face in many cases prevent them from receiving
    and accessing the full Pell Grant award.
        So I'm working on ways to reduce barriers to education for
    students with disability in my district, and throughout the
    Nation, I'm working on a bill that would allow Pell Grant
    flexibility for applicable students, while still maintaining
    progress toward graduation and aligning affordability and
    accessibility in addition to setting students with disabilities
    up to gain Meaningful Employment opportunity, which is
    obviously the goal, or is at least part of the goal.
        I wonder Chancellor if you might be able to just give me
    some perspective. Does the current structure of Pell Grants as
    it relates to students with disabilities to create barriers
    that make it hard for them to be successful? I think you're on
    mute sir.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you Representative. You know we take a lot
    of pride on the fact that this university was one that did a
    lot of the innovation through Ted Nugent and others to make
    this campus very accessible to students with disabilities. And
    to my knowledge the Pell Grant component of that in terms of
    financial accessibility to this university isn't an obstacle.
        I will do some further checking on that, but not to my
    knowledge.
        Mr. Morelle. OK.
        Mr. Jones. The biggest issue is making sure we've got the
    accommodations that are absolutely critical for students to be
    able to physically navigate the campus, and that's why as I
    said, we were the ones that invented curb cuts to allow people
    in wheelchairs equal access.
        We have an entirely new building that's being designed so
    everybody can access that building equally, you know, whether
    you need accessibility or not. But the biggest issue is the
    kind of services we provide in one of our dormitories where we
    provide full accommodation for students that need that kind of
    help, you know, regardless of what their disability might be.
        And so that's where we think the biggest need is, is to
    make sure that we are providing accessibility for students that
    need it in terms of physical accessibility to all of our campus
    resources that we are providing you know, making sure that
    everything that we send out across the campus in terms of mass
    mails are equally accessible to all.
        That's the biggest challenge we face more so than any
    problem, I believe regarding Pell as it relates to
    accessibility, but I'd be more than happy to look into that and
    get back to you with more detail.
        Mr. Morelle. Well I would love to, first of all thank you
    for your leadership on this and the importance of making sure
    that we you know have a least restrictive setting for people
    with disabilities to achieve a college degree and achieve their
    dream. I would love to come back to you, and I will because I
    have a letter from the Association of Higher Education and
    Disability, a group called AHEAD on the question of
    intellectually developmentally disabled students obtaining a
    degree in higher education.
        And they've raised concerns, so without objection, Mr.
    Chair, I'd like to submit the letter from that group for the
    record, but I would love to come back and talk to you about
    those challenges so that we can perhaps look for a legislative
    way to advance the interests of all people by issuing higher
    education. With that Mr. Chair I yield back, again thank you
    for your indulgence.
        Mr. Scott. Without objection your request, your letter will
    be admitted.
        Mr. Scott. I'm not aware of other Members who have not been
    recognized. If not, Dr. Murphy do you have a closing statement?
    The gentleman from North Carolina, Dr. Murphy is recognized for
    a closing statement, when he unmutes.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman am, I good?
        Mr. Scott. You're good.
        Mr. Murphy. All right thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    want to say thank you to all of the panelists today. I think
    we've learned a lot and had some great discussions. We're
    obviously on different levels of where we feel this pathway
    should go, but I appreciate nonetheless the very robust and
    very good conversation today.
        I think that everybody agrees that Pell Grants have been an
    extraordinary and powerful tool in helping low-income students
    across this Nation access a post-secondary education. It's
    afforded opportunity for so many individuals who have benefited
    from this program.
        But today we talked a lot about root cases when it is
    convenient, and for some reason we're failing to address the
    root causes behind why we have seen skyrocketing student debt.
    Instead, the answer is to pour more money into a system that
    honestly is broken, and has been failing our students, and
    saddling them with tremendous debt.
        As I mentioned earlier when hospitals and physicians had
    Medicare rates cut to them, they found a way to cut costs, save
    money, and at the same time increase quality of care. Why can
    higher education not do the same? They cannot and will not
    until they are held accountable. Throwing more money at them is
    literally opposite of what we should be doing in rewarding bad
    behavior.
        Colleges need to do their part in keeping costs down and
    ensure that their students actually graduate with a useful
    degree. As students with diverse backgrounds seek out post-
    graduate, post-secondary education, colleges, and universities
    need to do a better job of serving their unique needs.
        It's time for college administrators to come down from
    their ivory towers and serve the students coming through the
    door, rather than forcing the students to rearrange their lives
    to enter academia and then force subsequently, straddling them
    with enormous student debt upon graduation.
        Once a student is enrolled, they need to gain the skills
    that they need whether they be welding, critical thinking, or
    problem-solving in the most efficient, cost-effective, and
    effective way possible. That is simply not happening right now.
    We have seen an explosion of college majors that offer students
    no chance of gainful employment upon graduation, and only
    saddle them with monstrous debt.
        As we reauthorize the Higher Education Act, we need to have
    a serious conversation about what is standing in the way of
    colleges and universities from lowering their costs, and
    subsequently better serving their students.
        Again let me be very clear, we want to help our students,
    especially low-income students and give them every opportunity
    to a pathway to a successful career. The jobs are out there. We
    need to get the students the skills that they need to get hired
    and thrive after college and subsequently not be able to move
    forward because they're straddled with debt.
        I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing. Again, I
    thank the participants, I look forward to continuing these
    conversations in the months to come, thank you Mr. Chairman, I
    will yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I 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 August 12, preferably
    in Microsoft Word format.
        Material submitted must address the subject matter of the
    hearing. Only a Member of the Subcommittee or an invited
    witness may submit materials for inclusion into the record.
    Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents longer than
    50 pages will be incorporated into the record by way of an
    internet link which you must provide to the Committee Clerk
    within the required timeframe, but you have to 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 edandlabor.hearings@mail.house.gov. So
    I want to thank our witnesses for their participation today.
    Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for
    you, and we ask witnesses to please respond to those questions
    in writing.
        The hearing record will be held open for 14 days, and I
    remind my colleagues that pursuant to Committee practice,
    witness questions for the hearing record must be submitted by
    the Majority Staff within seven days, and the questions
    submitted must address the subject matter of the hearing.
        I'll now recognize myself for the purpose of closing
    statement. I want to thank our expert witnesses for an engaging
    dialog, and for your commitment to student success. Today we
    reflected on the urgent need to expand low-income student
    access to affordable, high-quality public education, and our
    responsibility to help all students complete their degrees.
        Even before COVID-19, many public four-year institutions
    enrolled and graduated far too few low-income students. Now as
    we've heard from our witnesses, this problem has only been
    exacerbated by the college closures and severe disruptions
    caused by the pandemic.
        While Congress provided direct relief to help institutions
    and students weather the pandemic, persistent barriers to
    education still exist for underserved students. This is why we
    need bold, legislative solutions to lower the cost of college
    and support student success. Like the American Families Plan
    and the Pell Grant Preservation Expansion Act, and the bill
    that Congressman Pocan and I introduced in June.
        As a Pell Grant recipient, with Ms. Suriel and Dr. Ortagus,
    exemplified the life changing impact of Pell Grants and public
    higher education can have on our Nation's students. Likewise,
    Chancellor Jones's testimony provides a model for
    transformational efforts that our institutions can employ to
    leverage the Pell Grant and support student success.
        And we should take note of this testimony that a
    significant portion of the value of a college education occurs
    outside the classroom, and so the opportunity for a liberal
    arts education should still be available to all, even if it is
    not technically monetized or otherwise job related. That
    opportunity still ought to be available.
        We must invest in strengthening and expanding access to
    these critical resources so that every person can learn and
    earn the lasting benefits that come with a quality degree. So
    again, I want to thank our witnesses, and I look forward to
    building back a better higher education system in which
    everyone can succeed.
        And if there's no further business to come before the
    Committee, without objection the Subcommittee now stands
    adjourned.
        [Additional submissions by Chairman Scott follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submission by Mr. Morelle follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

                                     [all]