[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 [email protected]. 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]