    [Senate Hearing 119-91]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 119-91

                         THE STATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
                              LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                    EXAMINING THE STATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 21, 2025

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    60-602 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2026

              COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                    BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana, Chairman

    RAND PAUL, M.D., Kentucky            BERNIE SANDERS (I), Vermont,
    SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine                  Ranking Member
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    ROGER MARSHALL, M.D., Kansas         CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    TIM SCOTT, South Carolina            TIM KAINE, Virginia
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama            JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
    JIM BANKS, Indiana                   ED MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JON HUSTED, Ohio                     ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
                                         ANGELA ALSOBROOKS, Maryland

                   Matthew Gallivan, Majority Staff Director
               Danielle Janowski, Majority Deputy Staff Director
                    Warren Gunnels, Minority Staff Director
                   Zain Rizvi, Minority Deputy Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                   STATEMENTS

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025

                                                                       Page

                               Committee Members

    Cassidy, Hon. Bill, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
      Labor, and Pensions, Opening statement.........................     1
    Sanders, Hon. Bernie, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from the State
      of Vermont, Opening statement..................................     3

                                   Witnesses

    Gillen, Dr., Andrew, Research Fellow, CATO Institute, Washington,
      DC.............................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
        Summary statement............................................    11
    Lindsay, Dr., Michael, President, Taylor University, Upland, IN..    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Brown, Dr., Mark A., President, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    27
    Lowery-Hart, Dr., Russell, Chancellor, Austin Community College
      District, Austin, TX...........................................    32
        Prepared statement...........................................    34
    Pierce, Mike, Executive Director, Student Borrower Protection
      Center, Atlanta, GA............................................    38
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
        Summary statement............................................    66

                         THE STATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, May 21, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
           Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
    room 430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Cassidy,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

        Present: Senators Cassidy [presiding], Marshall, Hawley,
    Banks, Moody, Sanders, Kaine, Hassan, Hickenlooper, Kim, Blunt
    Rochester, and Alsobrooks.

                      OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASSIDY

        The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
    Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. In some
    respects, the American higher education system has lost its
    purpose.

        Many college students are not learning skills needed to
    succeed in the modern workforce, and studies show that the cost
    of college is quickly outpacing the value of a student's
    education. In the last 30 years, tuitions and fees at private
    nonprofit colleges rose by 80 percent.

        At public 4-year institutions, they have increased by 109
    percent. Meanwhile, according to a non-partisan analysis, 23
    percent of bachelor's degree programs and 43 percent of
    master's degrees have a negative return on investment. This is
    to say that students pay more for their degrees than the
    increase in salaries they can expect. Now, this increased cost
    often is not going to improve education.

        Often those dollars are being funneled to promote a DEI
    ideology, dividing students based on race and ethnicity. A
    report studying 65 colleges and universities found that the
    average institution was paying for 45 staff members to promote
    DEI policies. By the way, these programs are subsidized by
    taxpayers who contribute significant funding annually for these
    universities.

        Instead of promoting academic excellence, many campuses
    have been ideologically captured, becoming hotbeds of hate and
    division. Students leave college woefully unprepared for the
    workforce while being saddled with insurmountable debt that
    they cannot pay back. Comprehensive reform of higher education
    is needed.

        President Trump and Secretary McMahon are making progress,
    including fixing the broken student loan program, but
    Congressional action is needed to create lasting change. Over
    the last several years, there have been multiple legislative
    attempts to improve higher-ed to benefit students.

        This includes my bipartisan College Transparency Act with
    Senator Warren, which allows students to compare the
    differences between prospective colleges and a major to see if
    the value of the degree is worth the cost. Senator Tuberville
    is leading the Graduate Opportunity and Affordable Loans Act to
    end graduate plus loans, which have been inflationary to
    tuition costs.

        This bill puts downward pressure on rising college costs by
    limiting graduate school borrowing. There is also the
    Streamlining Accountability and Value in Education, or SAVE,
    for Students Act led by Senator Cornyn, which streamlines
    confusing repayment options for student loan borrowers,
    decreasing the nine options to two, giving students and
    families clarity as to which repayment plan best fits their
    needs.

        I look forward to discussing these and other policies in
    depth today. It is a given, but nonetheless, I emphasize the
    power of education. It can transform lives, lifting not just
    the generation that attends college out of poverty, but the
    subsequent generations in that family as well. It is also a
    font of life-changing innovation and research, helps develop
    life-saving cures, and define solutions to some of America's
    biggest challenges.

        But when universities fail in their basic responsibility to
    ensure a safe learning environment, when students leave college
    in debt and without hope for a brighter future, the American
    people lose trust in higher-ed. There is no one who can
    advocate for higher education better than the institutions
    themselves.

        Universities must make the case to the American people as
    to why they are valuable to the Nation and are worthy of
    taxpayer investment. I thank Taylor University and Tuskegee
    University for being here. Rarely are HBCUs or religiously
    oriented universities mentioned in conversations about the
    landscape of how to improve America's higher education system.

        We will also hear from the Austin, Texas Community College
    District, which offers an interesting perspective beyond
    traditional 4-year universities. A great opportunity for all to
    share stories of the value you provide. I will make one more
    comment. As I mentioned earlier, it is important that everyone
    has an opportunity to speak to the American people on this
    important topic.

        Each person and institution should have the right to make
    their case. In light of that, it is known, but I will comment
    upon, that Harvard University had been requested to attend
    today's panel. Harvard is the world--is world famous for its
    cutting edge research, which helps make not only our Nation,
    but the world healthier.

        But there have been recent episodes in a recent report on
    Antisemitism within Harvard's culture. This would have been
    Harvard's chance to tell the Committee and the country how it
    is addressing Antisemitism, removing DEI from priorities, and
    highlighting their value as a research institution.

        Unfortunately, they declined the invitation. Thank you
    again to our witnesses for being here. I look forward to
    discussing how we can improve higher education so students can
    succeed in the classroom and beyond. And with that, I recognize
    Senator Sanders.

                      OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS

        Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let
    me thank all of our guests for being here to discuss a very
    important subject.

        Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, you and I look at this world
    a little bit differently regarding this subject. In my view, in
    a highly competitive global economy, in an economy where
    technology is changing the very nature of work and jobs we
    perform, if we are going to have the kind of standard of living
    that the American people deserve, we need the best educated
    workforce in the world.

        I would trust there is not a lot of debate about the
    importance of that. Sadly, that is not the case today. Our
    Nation used to lead the world in the percentage of adults with
    a college degree. We were No. 1. Today, despite being the
    wealthiest Nation in the history of the world, we are in 11th
    place in terms of the percentage of adults with a college
    degree.

        We are now behind countries like Japan, South Korea,
    Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and
    Switzerland, among others. Being 11th in a competitive global
    economy in the number of our people who have college degrees is
    not a good place to be. Mr. Chairman, not only must we strive
    to have the strongest economy in the world, we also need an
    economy and an educational system which provides for the basic
    necessities of life for the American people.

        Yet today, in our Country, we have an understaffed
    workforce, something which this Committee has discussed, which
    has led us to massive shortages of doctors, nurses, dentists,
    pharmacists, mental health counselors, and psychologists. So,
    we are living in a country where in terms of healthcare, we are
    not able to even provide the kind of care that our people need.
    That is one of the failures of our educational system.

        Further, at a time when we face major infrastructural
    challenges, and when we need to transform our energy system
    away from fossil fuel in order to save this planet from the
    ravages of climate change, we don't have enough engineers,
    construction workers, plumbers, pipe fitters, sheet metal
    workers, and electricians because we have not made
    apprenticeship programs and trade schools widely available.

        Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I happen to be a strong believer in
    lifelong learning. Learning is not just the means to getting a
    good job. As human beings, from 2 to 102, people strive to
    learn. It is part of what being human is about, and we should
    make that opportunity available to all.

        Mr. Chairman, in the early part of the 19th century, not
    only did low-income and working-class kids not have the
    opportunity to go to college, many of them were unable to
    receive a high school education or even a primary school
    education. Young people at that point were working on farms,
    they were working in fields, and they were working in
    factories, often under terrible, terrible conditions.

        Higher education at that time was available only to the
    children of the wealthy, mostly boys. Working people and trade
    unions understood at that time how unfair that was. They looked
    around them. They saw the rich kids going to Harvard and Yale
    and their kids not getting any education at all. And they
    fought hard all over this country to say, you know what, we
    want a public education system free for all kids to the 12th
    grade. And that was a major step forward for the United States
    of America.

        Well, the world has changed just a little bit over the last
    100 years. 40 or 50 years ago in Louisiana, or Vermont,
    virtually any state in this country, if you received a high
    school degree, the odds were pretty good that you would be able
    to go out and get a decent paying job, raise a family, buy a
    house, and survive on one income. That was 40 or 50 years ago.
    Well, that world has changed.

        Today, the global economy has changed the world, technology
    has changed, and our educational needs have changed. Anybody
    here really think that a high school degree is all that kids
    need today? Most people don't. In America today, a college
    degree is the equivalent in many ways of what a high school
    degree was a generation ago.

        Today, the median worker with a bachelor's degree will earn
    over a million dollars more in their career than that same
    worker with just a high-school diploma. But it is not just
    money. Young people want to get the best education they can so
    that they can be productive and contributing members of our
    society.

        All over this country, I have had the opportunity to talk
    to young people who did well in high school. It is one of the
    saddest stories you are ever going to hear. Kids did well in
    high school, they want to get a college education, but they
    simply can't afford it. They look at the price tag and they
    say, no way am I going to go $50,000, $100,000 in debt.

        How many wonderful young scientists and teachers do we lose
    because they can't afford to go to college, or don't want to
    leave school deeply in debt? And you talk about this Committee
    deals with healthcare. Everybody on this Committee knows you
    are a working class person, and you want to go to medical
    school, you know what you leave medical school with? $500,000
    in debt.

        Anybody think that is vaguely sane at a time when we have a
    massive shortage of doctors? All of us on this Committee have
    talked to people who are paying off their student debt 20, 30,
    40 years after graduating school. So, what is the answer?

        In my view, the answer is to do what many other countries
    around the world are doing and saying that in the richest
    country in the history of the world, all of our people, rich,
    poor, who want to get a higher education should be able to do
    that regardless of their income.

        That is why, Mr. Chairman, I have introduced legislation
    called the College for All Act that will do just that. Bottom
    line is, countries all over the world in Germany, France,
    Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Iceland, public colleges
    and universities are tuition free.

        Those countries are doing it not just for the young people
    themselves, but for the future of their country. They
    understand a well-educated population is good for the country.
    We should be doing the same. So, thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.

        The Chairman. We will now proceed to the witnesses, and we
    will introduce each witness as he is going to testify. So not
    all at once, but. And so, I will introduce our first witness,
    Dr. Andrew Gillen. Am I pronouncing that correctly, sir,
    Gillen?

        Mr. Gillen. Yes.

        The Chairman. Dr. Gillen is a research fellow at the Cato
    Institute, an independent think tank that advocates for
    individual liberty, free markets, and peace.

        Dr. Gillen is one of the most prolific and respected
    researchers on higher-ed finance and accountability, and has
    written extensively on student loan reform, Federal
    accountability measures, and transparency in college outcomes.
    Thank you for your expertise and sharing it with us, Dr.
    Gillen. Please proceed, and you have 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF ANDREW GILLEN, RESEARCH FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE,
                             WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Gillen. Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and
    esteemed Members of the Committee, thank you for this
    opportunity to testify on these important matters. My full
    written testimony has been submitted for the record. And
    unfortunately, I won't have time to cover everything, but I do
    want to highlight a few key points on the topics of
    affordability----

        The Chairman. Mr. Gillen, will you pull that microphone
    closer to you?

        Mr. Gillen. I do want to highlight a couple of comments on
    the topics of accountability, affordability, and innovation.
    So, regarding affordability. One of the main impediments to
    Federal action improving college affordability is what is
    called the Bennett Hypothesis, which refers to when colleges
    raise tuition or cut institutional aid when financial aid is
    provided.

        There is a lot of literature that argues that this is
    happening, but we can fight against it. And so, the two most
    important ways to fight against it are one, introduce caps on
    the Federal aid program. So things like Pell Grants and
    undergraduate loans are capped, so we don't need to worry about
    the Bennett Hypothesis too much there. But things like Grad
    Plus and Parent Plus are uncapped.

        To the extent that we keep these programs, it is very
    important that we put caps on them to avoid colleges kind of
    undermining the effectiveness of those aid programs. The other
    thing we can do is adapt what is called the median cost of
    attendance. And so right now, the way financial aid is awarded
    is the college sets its own cost of attendance.

        If it increases price by $1, the student gets $1 more in
    aid. And this link between the college increasing price and the
    aid eligibility is what is driving the Bennett hypothesis. We
    can completely neuter that. We can sever that link by using the
    median cost of college. So you still have each college set its
    own costs of attendance, but you then determine aid eligibility
    based on the median among all the colleges.

        I would argue that we should do this at the program level
    rather than the college level, but the concept is very similar.
    Regarding accountability, most colleges are providing good
    education at a reasonable cost, but there are too many cases
    where the benefits from an education do not justify the cost
    that are being paid by either the Government or the student, or
    parents.

        An accountability system would help reduce or completely
    eliminate this problem. So a well-designed accountability
    system would do a number of things. So one, it would be focused
    on programs rather than institutions. So a program is like a
    credential and field of study. So a bachelor's in nursing, that
    would be a program. It should utilize the labor market
    outcomes. It should be applied universally to all colleges, all
    programs rather than selectively.

        Now, these are concepts that are pretty widely discussed,
    but there is two that are less widely discussed that I think
    would really benefit. The first is that we can use carrots too.
    So, all the accountability programs we have ever used in this
    country have just been sticks. The only thing we have ever
    threatened to do is take away financial aid.

        We can use carrots. The carrots could be financial, so it
    could be performance bonuses, or it could be regulatory relief.
    So, why require a top performing college to be accredited or to
    have state authorization? We can waive these regulatory
    requirements for high performing colleges.

        By using both carrots and sticks, that will introduce a lot
    of variation in the accountability system that will get us
    improved performance. The other thing that I think would be
    really important for accountability systems going forward is to
    use relative performance rather than a numerical cutoff.

        The top 20, 25 percent of colleges should have different
    sanctions and rewards than the bottom 25 percent. Okay, so what
    accountability metrics could we use? I know people on this
    Committee have advocated earnings floors, gainful employment.
    All of these are all good things.

        One under appreciated option is repayment rates. This
    actually makes the most sense. It is the most logical
    accountability metric for student loans. So we unfortunately
    have not done much on repayment rates. The last kind of metric
    that gets a lot of discussion is risk sharing. So risk sharing
    is the idea that if the student fails to repay their student
    loans, the college will then be responsible for either all or a
    portion of it.

        This is the approach the House has taken where they have
    introduced a somewhat complicated risk sharing formula. I would
    argue that risk sharing formula is actually no more complicated
    than the gainful employment regulations, which we have
    implemented for close to a decade here on and off. So I would
    agree that it is not too complicated, but we can make it
    simpler if we want to.

        Regarding innovation, the main barrier here is
    accreditation. So accreditation directs giant barriers to entry
    for new colleges and it also forces all colleges to use the
    same recipe of inputs and processes. Both of these really
    suppress innovation.

        To the extent we can reform accreditation to increase
    competition among accreditors and to make sure they focus on
    outcomes, that would lead to vast improvements in innovation.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gillen follows.]
                      prepared statement of andrew gillen
        Chairman Cassidy, and esteemed Members of the Committee, thank you
    for giving me the opportunity to testify on these important matters.

        The topic of this hearing is the state of higher education, and
    unfortunately the current state is the worst of my lifetime. Many are
    concerned about the value of higher education, the quality of the
    education provided relative to the cost, but many are also concerned
    about the values of higher education, the social and civic values it
    chooses to pass along to students and society.

        While there are many areas of concern, there is little the Federal
    Government can or should do about some of them. For example, while
    there are valid concerns about curricula and grade inflation, Federal
    involvement would not fix the problems and would likely make things
    worse.

        But there are several areas where the Federal Government could have
    a positive impact, largely by addressing undesirable and unintended
    consequences of existing government policies and practices. In
    particular, there is a strong case for Federal policy changes to
    address affordability, accountability, and innovation.
                                 Affordability
        The Federal Government provides around $140 billion in financial
    aid each year, with a goal of promoting equality of opportunity and
    increasing college affordability. Most of the aid takes the form of
    grants, loans, or tax benefits. The effectiveness of these programs
    varies widely. For instance, Pell grants are well designed and
    implemented, and go far toward achieving their intended purpose. At the
    other end of the spectrum are the tax benefits, which are;

            mistargeted, going to high-income students due to universal
            rather than selective targeting. Tax benefits also operate more
            as delayed reimbursement than as financial aid. And even the
            aid that does make it to the middle class is largely captured
            by the colleges because many colleges strategically respond to
            the tax credits by raising tuition or reducing institutional
            aid. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\  Andrew Gillen, ``Higher Education Subsidization: Why and How
    Should We Subsidize Higher Education?,'' Texas Public Policy
    Foundation, April 2024.

        Because they are so badly designed and ineffective, tax benefits
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    should be eliminated.

        Student loans fall somewhere in the middle. Loans are necessary for
    many students, but our current loan system is badly designed. One of
    the main problems is that a substantial portion of this aid is
    harvested by colleges without making college more affordable. There is
    considerable evidence that colleges raise their prices and reduce
    institutional aid when Federal financial aid is available. This
    phenomenon is referred to as the Bennett Hypothesis. The scholarly
    literature finds solid evidence that the Bennett Hypothesis is real:

              Professors Cellini and Goldin found ``large and
            significant differences between the tuition charged by T4 and
            NT4 institutions . . . The magnitudes are comparable to average
            per-student Federal grant aid awards, suggesting that T4
            institutions may indeed raise tuition to capture the maximum
            grant aid available.'' \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\  Stephanie Riegg Cellini and Claudia Goldin, ``Does Federal
    Student Aid Raise Tuition? New Evidence on For-Profit Colleges,'' NBER
    Working Paper No. 17827, February 2012.

              An old paper of mine explores how the competitive
            pressure will lead almost all colleges to raise their price
            when aid is available. \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\  Andrew Gillen, ``Introducing Bennett Hypothesis 2.0,'' The
    Center for College Affordability and Productivity, February 2012.

              Professors Gordon and Hedlund find that increases in
            student loan borrowing are the most important factor in
            explaining rising college costs, accounting for 40 percent of
            the increase. \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\  Grey Gordon and Aaron Hedlund, ``Accounting for the Rise in
    College Tuition,'' NBER Working Paper No. 21967, February 2016.

              Analysts at the New York Federal Reserve Bank found
            that each additional dollar in loans led to 40-60 cents in
            higher tuition and a reduction of 20 cents of institutional
            aid. \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\  David O. Lucca, Taylor Nadauld, and Karen Shen, ``Credit
    Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in
    Federal Student Aid Programs,'' Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
    February 2017.

              Professors Black, Turner, and Denning find that ``the
            creation of Grad PLUS led to significantly higher program
            prices . . . sticker prices went up approximately dollar for
            dollar with increases in Federal loans.'' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\  Sandra E. Black, Lesley J. Turner, and Jeffrey T. Denning,
    ``PLUS or Minus? The Effect of Graduate School Loans on Access,
    Attainment, and Prices,'' NBER Working Paper 31291, May 2023.

        Given that the Bennett Hypothesis is sabotaging student loans, this
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee should seek to reduce or eliminate the threat.

        There are two policies that would limit the damage from the Bennett
    Hypothesis. First, aid could be targeted only to low-income students
    who would otherwise not be able to afford to attend college. Colleges
    cannot raise tuition as much in response to such aid because that would
    price these students out of the market again. Second, aid programs
    should be capped. Pell grants and undergraduate loans are already
    capped. Grad PLUS and Parent PLUS loans are not--there is no aggregate
    cap and the annual cap is entirely up to the college. While I would
    argue for eliminating PLUS loans entirely, at the very least, PLUS
    loans need to be capped.

        There is also a way to neuter the Bennett Hypothesis. The way aid
    eligibility is determined right now, an increase in tuition will
    automatically lead to an increase in aid. So if a college raises
    tuition by $1, their students get $1 more in loans. This link between
    higher prices and more aid is the key driver of the Bennett Hypothesis.
    So sever the link. The best way to sever the link is to use the median
    cost of attendance among all colleges to determine aid eligibility
    instead of each colleges' own cost of attendance. \7\ When using the
    median, an increase in tuition at a particular college has no effect on
    how much aid a student can receive to attend that college. This vastly
    reduces each college's incentive to raise tuition when aid is
    available, which in turn neuters the Bennett Hypothesis. Notably, the
    House's reconciliation includes such a provision. The Senate should
    support this change too.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\  Andrew Gillen, ``The Case for Replacing Cost of Attendance
    With Median Cost of College,'' Texas Public Policy Foundation, October
    2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Accountability
        We desperately need more accountability in higher education. While
    most colleges provide a good education at a reasonable cost, there are
    substantial portions of higher education that are too low quality, too
    overpriced, or too oversupplied to justify an investment. But right
    now, colleges still benefit from enrolling students in such programs,
    because the college gets to keep all the money students paid even if
    the student fails to repay their loans. In other words, colleges can
    win even when students and the government lose. An accountability
    system should change this so that colleges only win when students and
    the government win too.

        We know that accountability mechanisms can work. Of colleges
    sanctioned for having a Cohort Default Rate that was too high, 95
    percent lost access to aid. \8\ And of the 38 programs at Vatterott
    College that failed the Obama administration's gainful employment test,
    all were closed several years later. \9\ But while we technically have
    three accountability systems operating right now, none of them are
    effective. The first, Cohort Default Rates, is obsolete now that we use
    income driven repayment plans since such plans allow for $0 payments
    that don't count as defaulting. The second, Gainful Employment
    regulations, are routinely implemented by Democratic administrations
    and are just as routinely scrapped by Republican administrations. The
    third, accreditation, has probably never been used. I don't know of any
    college that has lost accreditation for being too expensive for
    students or losing too much taxpayer money.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\  Stephanie R. Cellini, Rajeev Darolia, and Lesley J. Turner,
    ``Where Do Students Go When For-Profit Colleges Lose Federal Aid?,''
    American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2020.
        \9\  Andrew Gillen, ``Lessons from Gainful Employment: Improvements
    to Replicate and a Mistake to Avoid'', Texas Public Policy Foundation,
    February 2022.

        Without any functioning accountability system, we are in dire need
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    of a new one. A well-designed accountability system would:

            (1). Focus on programs rather than institutions

        Historically, accountability has been applied at the institutional
    (meaning the entire university) level, but program level (meaning a
    credential and field of study combination, such as a bachelor's in
    nursing) is much better because it avoids punishing good programs at
    bad schools while also ensuring that bad programs at good schools don't
    escape accountability.

            (2). Utilize labor market outcomes

        Accountability systems should also utilize labor market outcomes.
    Not only do around 90 percent of students attend college to enhance
    their careers, but because colleges can't control these outcomes, these
    metrics are harder for colleges to manipulate and game.

            (3). Be applied universally rather than selectively

        An accountability system should apply equally to all of higher
    education. There has been an unfortunate tendency with the Gainful
    Employment regulations to target only certain segments of higher
    education, notably the for-profit sector, while giving the vast
    majority of public and nonprofit higher education a free pass. But this
    is a fatal flaw in an accountability system because most failing
    programs were not located at for-profits. For example, applying the
    Obama administration's gainful employment test to all of higher
    education revealed that only targeting for-profits would have missed
    ``89 percent of failing programs and 73 percent of students graduating
    from a failing program.'' \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\  Andrew Gillen, ``Lessons from Gainful Employment:
    Improvements to Replicate and a Mistake to Avoid'', Texas Public Policy
    Foundation, February 2022.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            (4). Use both carrots and sticks

        Historically, higher education accountability has only used sticks
    to punish poor performers. It should therefore come as no surprise that
    higher education is reflexively hostile to accountability systems--they
    can only hurt. But it doesn't have to be that way. Accountability
    systems could use carrots too. In particular, high performing programs
    could earn performance bonuses or regulatory relief, including waivers
    of requirements to obtain accreditation and state authorization.

            (5). Use relative performance cutoffs instead of numerical
            cutoffs

        Most accountability systems have used numerical cutoffs. For
    example, the Cohort Default Rate (CDR) has a cutoff of 30 percent, so a
    college with a CDR of 29.9 percent for 3 years has unlimited access to
    Federal aid programs, whereas one with a CDR of 30 percent for 3 years
    loses all access to all aid programs. But it is difficult to determine
    a reasonable threshold, and historically, we've been too lenient. A CDR
    of 29 percent is still much too high to escape accountability.

        A better approach would set thresholds of relative performance
    among programs (and combine this with the use of carrots and sticks).
    Relative performance cutoffs are then determined based on a program's
    CDR relative to all other programs. Programs with the lowest CDRs could
    receive carrots, programs with typical CDRs would receive neither
    carrots or sticks, and programs with the worst CDRs would receive
    sticks. Tiers of three (each tier accounting for 33.33 percent), four
    (each tier accounting for 25 percent) or five (each tier accounting for
    20 percent) are simple, easy to understand, and provide opportunities
    to apply and scale carrots and sticks.

        The relative performance approach has several advantages over the
    numerical approach. To begin with, it avoids the problem of choosing
    thresholds that are too stringent or too lenient. It also automatically
    adjusts to common shocks. For example, when the economy enters a
    recession, CDRs might rise for all programs, even if the quality
    remains unchanged. A numerical threshold would require congressional
    action to avoid becoming more stringent then intended, whereas the
    relative performance approach would adjust to the recessionary
    environment automatically. Relative performance also encourages
    continuous competition among programs--if a program's peers improve,
    the program must improve too to maintain its relative position.

        What are some feasible options for an accountability system?

               Earnings floors

        Earnings floors would terminate aid eligibility for programs where
    students don't earn enough. Floors are easy to understand and would
    eliminate some of the most problematic underperforming programs. But
    earnings floors ignore debt. Programs that just barely pass the floor
    but load students with excessive student loan debt could have low or
    even negative returns while still passing an earnings floor test.
    Earnings floors are certainly a good start, but they can't do the job
    alone.

              Repayment rates

        Repayment rates are arguably the most natural choice for an
    accountability mechanism for student loans. The main problem with using
    repayment rates is that there is very little information about current
    repayment rates, which would make setting reasonable numerical
    thresholds difficult. This can be overcome by using relative repayment
    rates, with programs with repayment rates above the median being
    rewarded with various carrots, while programs with repayment rates
    below the median face sticks of increasing severity.

              Gainful employment for all

        Another option would be to apply gainful employment like debt to
    earnings tests across all of higher education. The metrics are
    familiar, and we'll soon have almost all the data needed to implement
    this due to the Financial Value Transparency regulations. But it could
    be argued that GE arbitrarily defines excessive debt. Are the 8 percent
    and 20 percent cutoffs in the most recent version the right numbers? If
    we implement GE for all, I recommend scrapping the current numerical
    cutoffs and implementing relative performance thresholds instead. I
    would also recommend introducing carrots for high performing programs.

              Risk sharing

        Risk sharing or skin in the game systems require colleges to
    reimburse the government when students fail to repay their loans. The
    best feature of these systems is that they align the college's
    incentives with those of the students and government. A college can no
    longer profit from offering an education that leaves the student and
    government worse off.

        The main problem with risk sharing proposals is that they tend to
    hit sympathetic colleges hard. For example, community colleges tend to
    face high risk sharing payments because they are open access and many
    students drop out before graduating, leading to repayment problems.
    This can be addressed by introducing safe harbors or compensating
    funding, but this tends to make the system more complex.

        For example, the House recently introduced a risk sharing system
    where colleges would be required to reimburse the government for a
    portion of losses when students fail to repay their loans. The
    reimbursement share essentially creates a safe harbor for community
    colleges, and the Promise grants provide additional funding to
    compensate for their remaining risk sharing payments.

        Some argue that the risk sharing system proposed by the House is
    too complicated. This concern has some validity but is largely
    overstated. The House's risk sharing metrics are no more complicated
    than the debt to earning metrics in gainful employment. The main GE
    formula is debt / earnings. The main risk sharing formula is earnings /
    price paid. These are comparable in their level of complication.

        Moreover, the House version could be amended to make is simpler.
    The risk sharing payments currently take government losses on a
    program's loans (consisting of missed payments, waived interest, and
    forgiven loans) and then apply the reimbursement percentage based on
    earnings / price paid. But the reimbursement percentage could instead
    be based on relative performance of the government's losses per
    student. One simple formula that would accomplish this is:
    reimbursement percentage = (program's relative performance--50 percent)
    * 2, with a cap at 0 percent. So the first 50 percent of programs that
    have the lowest government losses per student would have a 0 percent
    reimbursement percentage. The 51 percent program would have a
    reimbursement percentage of (51 percent-50 percent) * 2 = 2 percent.
    The program with the highest government losses per student would have a
    reimbursement rate of (100 percent-50 percent) * 2 = 100 percent. This
    would protect open access community colleges (since they tend to have
    low debt per student), while requiring risk sharing payments from the
    worst offenders.
                                   Innovation
        While individual professors and even departments or entire colleges
    can be quite innovative, the industry as a whole is remarkably
    stagnant. One of the primary drivers of this stagnation are government
    policies that suppress innovation, with accreditation being the key
    impediment.

        Accreditation erects enormous barriers to entry for new colleges,
    which prevents new innovative colleges from emerging. Over 20 years,
    the seven largest accreditors approved only 9 new public 4-year
    colleges, less than one new college every 2 years. \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\  Yazmin Guzman and Stig Leschly, ``An Analysis of the Age of
    Colleges and New College Accreditation in US Higher Education,'' Post-
    Secondary Commission, June 2022.

        Accreditation also largely requires all colleges to use the
    traditional recipe of inputs and processes of existing colleges. \12\
    If there are innovative models to deliver a higher quality and more
    affordable education, the accreditation system ensures that we won't
    find and adopt it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\  George C. Leef and Roxana D. Burris, ``Can College
    Accreditation Live Up to Its Promise?,'' American Council of Trustees
    and Alumni, 2002.

        Unfortunately, the potential replacements for accreditation are
    likely even worse, so our best course of action is an overhaul of the
    accreditation system. The most important reforms are to increase
    competition among accreditors and to ensure that accreditation
    decisions are made based on outputs and outcomes rather than inputs and
    processes. \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\  Andrew Gillen, ``Should College Accreditation Be Replaced or
    Reformed?,'' Defense of Freedom Institute, February 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Conclusion
        Higher education has certainly seen better days. But with Federal
    reforms that address issues with affordability, accountability, and
    innovation, we could turn the corner and unleash higher education to
    provide a better and more affordable education than we've ever seen
    before.

        Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony and I
    look forward to answering any questions you may have.
                                     ______

                      [summary statement of andrew gillen]
        My testimony argues that there is a strong case for Federal policy
    changes to address affordability, accountability, and innovation.
                                 Affordability
        Student loans are necessary for many students, but our current loan
    system is badly designed. There is considerable evidence that colleges
    raise their prices and reduce institutional aid when Federal financial
    aid is available. This phenomenon is referred to as the Bennett
    Hypothesis, and the scholarly literature finds solid evidence that the
    Bennett Hypothesis is real. This Committee should seek to reduce or
    eliminate the threat.

        There are two policies that would limit the damage from the Bennett
    Hypothesis. One, limit aid to low-income students, and two, cap the
    maximum aid provided for each program (e.g., cap PLUS loans). Severing
    the link between higher tuition and more aid by using the median cost
    of attendance among all colleges to determine aid eligibility instead
    of each colleges' own cost of attendance would neuter the Bennett
    Hypothesis.
                                 Accountability
        We desperately need more accountability in higher education. A
    well-designed accountability system would involve, (1) focus on
    programs rather than institutions, (2) utilize labor market outcomes,
    (3) be applied universally rather than selectively, (4) use both
    carrots and sticks, and (5) use relative performance cutoffs instead of
    numerical cutoffs.

        Some feasible accountability system metrics include earnings
    floors, repayment rates, Gainful Employment for all, and risk sharing.
                                   Innovation
        While individual professors and even departments or entire colleges
    can be quite innovative, the industry as a whole is remarkably
    stagnant. One of the primary drivers of this stagnation are government
    policies that suppress innovation, with accreditation being the key
    impediment. Accreditation erects enormous barriers to entry for new
    colleges, and largely requires all colleges to use the traditional
    recipe of inputs and processes of existing colleges, both of which
    severely limit innovation. Our best course of action is an overhaul of
    the accreditation system. The most important reforms are to increase
    competition among accreditors and to ensure that accreditation
    decisions are made based on outputs and outcomes rather than inputs and
    processes.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you. I will introduce Dr. Lindsay. Dr.
    Michael Lindsay is the President of Taylor University in
    Upland, Indiana, one of the oldest evangelical Christian
    universities in the country.

        He is a trained sociologist with expertise in leadership
    studies and evangelical engagement in public life, known for
    his focus on faith-informed leadership, institutional
    excellence, and civic virtue in Christian higher education.

        Dr. Lindsay has positioned Taylor as a national leader in
    preparing students for redemptive influence in society. We
    appreciate you for joining us today, Dr. Lindsay.

      STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LINDSAY, PRESIDENT, TAYLOR UNIVERSITY,
                               UPLAND, IN

        Mr. Lindsay. Thank you very much, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking
    Member Sanders, Members of the Committee. Thanks for the
    opportunity to speak today. I serve as President of Taylor
    University, a Christian institution in the heart of rural
    Indiana. I begin with a simple observation. American higher
    education has lost the trust of the people it is intended to
    serve.

        The American public watched over several decades as
    recognized institution have grown rich but rudderless. Too many
    have become places that grant credentials without conviction,
    offering dialog without direction, and the American public is
    not impressed. But it doesn't have to be this way.

        There are hundreds of campuses across this country going in
    a different direction, and Taylor is one of them. At Taylor,
    you don't see outrage culture on campus or students walking on
    ideological eggshells. We have students who are thriving, not
    in the absence of accountability, but actually because of it.

        Our students, faculty, and staff commit to a shared set of
    values which are articulated in something we call our
    foundational documents. They are not really rule books, but
    more like road maps designed for moral formation and
    institutional accountability. We place a copy of these
    documents in our admissions reception room, so prospective
    families know exactly what we stand for. It turns out moral
    clarity can actually be a competitive advantage.

        Our incoming student numbers have grown by more than 60
    percent over the last 4 years. I think that the first thing we
    want to say is that our sector needs a renewed sense of moral
    purpose. Higher education should not be where conviction goes
    to die. Rather, it should be where character comes to life.

        We also need to redouble our efforts around the important
    work of what we would call student formation. Too many places
    have spent years chasing research dollars and reputational
    rankings, but there are real limits to this particular
    strategy. What is most needed is just a commonsense approach to
    focus on student learning, student development, and student
    engagements.

        We need to look at the kind of communities that we are
    cultivating. What I love about the liberal arts approach to
    education is that it encourages relationships and connections
    across disciplinary boundaries, developing intellectual
    friendships that go beyond just individual departments.

        It is part of a larger commitment to the holistic
    development of students that cares not only about their
    intellectual formation, but also their professional and
    vocational, their social, even their spiritual formation. We
    also need to devote a lot more energy to student learning.

        At Taylor, we have something called the Beaty Center for
    Teaching and Learning, and I love that some of my most senior
    faculty regularly participate in their programming to try and
    sharpen their skills in the classroom. This should be the norm,
    not the exception. And we need to look for tangible ways to
    give students more chances to lead and then support them in
    that.

        Most college students don't arrive on our campuses knowing
    how to be excellent communicators or problem solvers, but they
    can learn that while they are on our campus through experiences
    and through expert coaching. All this, of course, requires
    investing in our students.

        It is why I am very grateful for the expanded Pell Grant
    support because I have seen the differences made in the lives
    of hundreds of our students on campus this year alone. I am
    proud of the way that Taylor has married generous financial aid
    with strategic cost savings. Since 2010, our average net
    tuition cost has actually decreased by 24 percent when adjusted
    for inflation. And during that same time, we have more than
    tripled the amount of awards that we give in student
    scholarships.

        As you can see in my written testimony, it went from $14
    million to over $48 million annually. And many of our peers are
    doing similarly good work. For every dollar that a student
    receives in Federal aid, member institutions of the Council for
    Christian College and Universities contribute $5 of their own
    in institutional aid.

        It is a model of shared investment that is making a
    measurable difference in the lives of thousands of students.
    Third, the mission of higher education cannot stop at the edge
    of our campus. It actually has to make a difference in the
    community. That is why Taylor launched what we call the Main
    Street Mile Initiative.

        It is a $100 million public and private investment strategy
    to revitalize our hometown of Upland, Indiana. As you can see
    from the graphic in my testimony, we are developing more than
    100 new units of housing, a collegiate inn and destination
    restaurant, over six miles of new trails, we will distribute
    more than $1 million in seed funding for new ventures and help
    welcome over 150,000 annual visitors to just our little town
    alone.

        We are in the midst of a $500 million fundraising campaign,
    and I am proud of the fact that we committed 20 percent of
    those dollars to benefit not our campus, but actually our wider
    community. In the process, we are not just transforming Upland.

        It is actually transforming us. Making us a campus that
    genuinely loves its hometown, and that is something every
    college in America ought to do. These three touchstones,
    renewed moral purpose, student formation, and tangible
    community impact are the key to American higher education
    reclaiming its place as the world's most powerful force for
    human flourishing.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lindsay follows.]
                     prepared statement of michael lindsay
        American higher education is facing a profound crisis of public
    trust. Formerly viewed as a transformative force for good in society,
    many institutions have drifted from the foundational values that once
    inspired the public's confidence and investment. This drift has led to
    declining trust in higher education among students, families, and the
    American people--an erosion driven not only by bloated costs and
    inaccessibility, but by moral ambiguity, hostility to dissenting
    viewpoints, and a fundamental loss of purpose. At its worst, higher
    education has alienated the very people it was meant to serve, offering
    credentials without conviction and dialog without direction. But at its
    best, higher education cultivates both character and competence,
    preparing students to serve and lead with wisdom that goes beyond mere
    knowledge.

        This formation requires more than academic rigor; it demands moral
    clarity, institutional transparency, and a holistic commitment to the
    development of students. Institutions that have remained rooted in
    their mission and are committed to moral clarity are experiencing
    significant momentum. At a number of faith-based institutions of higher
    education, we have seen remarkable growth over the past 5 years, even
    as national trends have plummeted. Families are seeking institutions
    that remain true to their purpose and live out their values
    transparently. We have seen this firsthand at Taylor University, where
    our foundational beliefs are not merely a footnote--they are the
    driving force behind every decision we make.

        This clarity of identity leads to more than enrollment growth. It
    fosters a student-focused environment, where learning takes place
    beyond just the classroom, and academic excellence is inseparable from
    moral formation. The result is generations of students who excel in the
    classroom and graduate equipped for lives of service, leadership, and
    purpose.

        Affordability remains a pressing concern for families across the
    country, but there are models that address this well. While many
    institutions have struggled amidst rising costs and declining
    enrollment, a growing number of faith-based institutions have grown
    without sacrificing quality. Strategic fiscal responsibility, paired
    with philanthropic generosity and mission-driven stewardship, allow
    mission-based educational models to remain both excellent and
    affordable.

        Beyond affordability, institutions like Taylor are playing an
    increasingly important role in the renewal of their communities. From
    downtown revitalization efforts to business incubators and expanded
    community health services, faith-based campuses are catalysts for
    community and regional transformation. These projects are grounded not
    merely in civic obligation, but in the deep conviction that the mission
    of higher education institutions must include the flourishing of the
    communities they call home.

        American higher education still holds enormous promise. But it will
    only reclaim the public's trust if it pairs academic excellence with
    moral formation and holistic student learning with community impact.
    Institutions that do this well are not just preparing students for the
    workforce. They are shaping the future of our Country.
                The Problem: Moral Rot in Too Many Universities
        It is no secret that higher education is experiencing a crisis of
    trust in America today. Confidence levels in our institutions of higher
    education have fallen precipitously over the last decade, and recent
    events have rightfully hastened this decline. \1\ American higher
    education is at a hinge moment, and leaders must decide which direction
    their institutions will take--continued relativism and ethical
    equivocation around the most pressing moral issues of the day, or a
    path of moral clarity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\  Jones, J. M. (2024, July 8). U.S. Confidence in Higher
    Education Now Closely Divided. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/
    646880/confidence-higher-education-closely-divided.aspx.

        For many years, an unspoken social contract existed between our
    Nation's citizens and institutions of higher learning. \2\ It was
    generally understood that higher education was a force for good in the
    life of young people, preparing them not only to be economically
    productive, but more importantly, to be imbued with moral character
    that would equip them to lead their communities, their professions, and
    the Nation. For decades, this understanding was the foundation of a
    thriving, vibrant ecosystem of American education, driving our Country
    to new heights and generating critical new knowledge and leaders who
    could provide a sense of purpose and mission to their people. Given the
    evidence before them, families and taxpayers saw higher education as a
    worthy cause, one that would pay dividends for their children.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\  Allen, D. (2025). American and its Universities Need a New
    Social Contract. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/
    archive/2025/04/stem-academia-universities-citizenship-civics/682384/.

        Today we are in a different place. Many Americans no longer see
    higher education as a force for good in the lives of their sons and
    daughters, or as something that will set them on a path toward
    flourishing. From repeated ``canceling'' and shouting down of campus
    speakers with opposing viewpoints to college presidents' unwillingness
    to acknowledge genocide as contrary to their institutional codes of
    conduct, \3\ it's understandable why so many Americans hold higher
    education in low regard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\  Zahneis, M. (2023). Penn's President Resigns After Remarks at
    congressional Hearing Prompted a Backlash. The Chronicle of Higher
    Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/penns-president-resigns-
    after-remarks-at-congressional-hearing-prompted-a-backlash.

        Forces that had for years been gnawing away from the inside at
    American higher education burst into the open following October 7,
    2023. When Hamas committed some of the most egregious acts of violence
    seen this century, certain institutional leaders could not bring
    themselves to describe this atrocity as the terrorism it clearly
    represented, much less condemn or meaningfully counteract the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    antisemitic actions taking place on their campuses.

        When moral relativism becomes the norm in higher education,
    confusion and chaos follow. Truth has been exchanged for a set of
    personal preferences rather than a set of moral convictions that guide
    our lives and direct our actions. Parents have become frustrated at the
    political and cultural agendas being weaponized against their children
    in the classroom, so it is not surprising that people have come to
    think that many institutions cannot provide students with the necessary
    instruction to pursue a life of purpose or to make it possible for
    others to do the same. Institutions that have divorced the cultivation
    of knowledge from the cultivation of wisdom have violated the unspoken
    social contract between the academy and the American people.

        Thankfully, this isn't the case everywhere. To see a wonderful
    counterexample, I would invite you to visit my home campus in Upland,
    Indiana. At Taylor University, you will not see glum faces, experience
    a culture of outrage, or endure ongoing student protests. Rather, you
    will find warm and friendly people building an active, vibrant campus
    culture with a joy and energy that flows from all corners of campus.
    Taylor is a member of the Council for Christian Colleges and
    Universities (CCCU), a group of over 180 institutions that support a
    coherent approach to education in which the development of the mind,
    body, spirit, and emotions are woven together in the quest not just for
    knowledge, but for wisdom. We believe that education that instructs
    merely the mind without deepening the soul builds intellectual strength
    without the moral courage to use it for the common good.

        Taylor students experience something notably different throughout
    their 4 years with us. We aspire to be a University that develops
    servant-leaders, preparing young people to carry, in the words of our
    mission statement, ``Christ's redemptive love, grace, and truth to a
    world in need.'' This is the cornerstone of all we do at Taylor, and it
    is maintained by a set of community covenants that every student,
    trustee, and member of our faculty and staff affirm and live by. We
    call these our five Foundational Documents, and they are much more than
    an honor code. They represent a set of shared commitments to one
    another as an extended family. What's more, at Taylor, we do not hide
    these convictions from the world; rather, we see them as key to our
    institutional identity. Accordingly, when families visit our campus
    admissions office, they find in the reception room a copy of our
    Foundational Documents on every table for their review. These
    statements aren't as important as the Bible, and they are not perfect
    or inclusive of everything we aspire to do at Taylor, but they provide
    shared understandings that shape the contours of our moral vision as a
    community. They explain who we are, what we aspire to become, and how
    we pursue that vision. I wish every institution of higher learning
    would be similarly explicit about their core beliefs, convictions, and
    tacit expectations. Colleges and universities need to be transparent
    about their identity so that families can more effectively assess
    whether the institution is the right fit for their student.

        We clarified Taylor's Foundational Documents several years ago, and
    now our faculty and staff annually reaffirm their commitment to these
    shared theological understandings, which also shape our everyday
    protocols and principles. The response since has been nothing short of
    extraordinary. Our enrollment and fundraising have surged, and our
    campus has become a place of thriving. Employee engagement is at its
    highest levels in years, and external recognitions have validated our
    internal assessments that things are heading in the right direction.
    This past year, the Princeton Review ranked the Taylor campus No. 3 in
    the country for happiest students, number 11 for best run universities,
    and number twenty-five for most-loved colleges. The Princeton Review
    ranked the Taylor campus No. 3 in the country for happiest students,
    number 11 for best run universities, and number twenty-five for most-
    loved colleges the Princeton Review ranked the Taylor campus No. 3 in
    the country for happiest students, number 11 for best run universities,
    and number twenty-five for most-loved colleges. \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\  The Princeton Review. (2025). Taylor University (TU). https://
    www.princetonreview.com/college/taylor-university-1022635.

        The shared moral commitments on campus have made it easier for us
    to build the kind of culture that draws people who share our beliefs.
    Visitors routinely comment on the positive energy and genuine care for
    others that they see flowing through the campus every day. From the
    moment students arrive on campus during Welcome Weekend, they begin
    building relationships that will last a lifetime, whether through a
    small-group fellowship, a residence hall gathering, a mentoring
    relationship with a faculty member, or participation on an intramural
    team. Because we are located in the Indiana cornfields, our students
    have to find community and make memories with one another on campus. As
    a result, our students are exceptionally engaged, with the eighth
    highest intramural sports participation rate in the country and a
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    countless number of leadership opportunities.

        This tight campus community is remarkably countercultural these
    days. As Robert Putnam famously described twenty-five years ago in
    Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,
    Americans have long been withdrawing from social and civic engagement
    with one another, with disastrous effects for our communities and
    democracy. \5\ The rise of social media only accelerated many of his
    findings, which are supercharged across most college campuses today.
    Without a shared moral framework or opportunities to form closer ties,
    students struggle to engage meaningfully with one another, particularly
    when faced with contentious or challenging issues. In the absence of
    this ethical cohesion and in the clutches of moral relativism that has
    become so pervasive in wider American culture, students see one another
    and their beliefs as enemies to be conquered, not as opportunities for
    constructive dialog. At Taylor and other places like it, we find things
    to be different. Thanks to a common moral grounding, students
    vigorously debate important ideas, but they navigate these issues
    within a shared framework. Moreover, they do so from a higher degree of
    self-awareness, knowing that all of us are in need of God's redemption,
    so none of us is more righteous than those with whom we disagree. As
    theologian Miroslav Volf wrote in Exclusion & Embrace: A Theological
    Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, \6\ just as
    Christians have received salvation through reconciliation to God, so
    also must we extend a reconciling spirit toward others, embracing our
    enemies in an analogous love as that which God has offered to us. This
    is a radical approach to campus life, one in which we are called not
    merely to tolerance or inclusion, but to love and forgiveness. We fall
    short of that ideal every day at Taylor, but it's a precept that
    constitutes our very identity as an institution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\  Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival
    of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
        \6\  Volf, M. (1996). Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological
    Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Abingdon Press.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                The Need: Growth and Innovation to Combat Decay
        As students and families long for an educational experience that
    provides more than mere intellectual formation in the midst of this
    broader crisis of trust, a number of faith-based institutions are
    experiencing a remarkable and countercyclical period of growth. This
    diverges from the general decline in the U.S. college-bound population
    that is associated with the looming `demographic cliff.' \7\ Yet, there
    are notable exceptions whereby institutions are increasing market share
    through missional definition and clear communication.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\  Lane, P., Falkenstern, C., & Bransberger, P. (2024). Knocking
    at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates. Western
    Interstate Commission for Higher Education. https://www.wiche.edu/
    knocking.

        Dozens of faith-based institutions experienced a significant
    increase in enrollment this past year, including Taylor University.
    Indeed, over the past 4 years, Taylor has seen more than a 60 percent
    increase in the size of our incoming freshmen classes, without changing
    our admissions standards. For the first time in twenty-five years, we
    have implemented a wait list for the incoming class due to the sheer
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    volume of demand we are experiencing.

        During this same timeframe, our freshman retention rate has
    averaged over 90 percent. And this has not come at the cost of quality,
    as Taylor's average high school GPA among incoming freshmen over the
    past 5 years is 3.88. When families explain why they chose Taylor, they
    talk about the University's moral clarity and the whole-person
    educational experience we offer. It turns out that American families
    want to know what an institution stands for--its values and
    commitments. As we have been more explicit about our institutional
    identity, more families have chosen to send their sons and daughters to
    Taylor.

        Other institutions in our peer group, like Grace College and
    Cedarville University, have seen similar growth. \8\ These patterns
    underscore a broader trend: enrollment decline among private secular
    colleges has been six times greater than decline at religiously
    affiliated colleges. Moreover, many Christian institutions have grown
    by double-digits. For 3 years in a row, Taylor has welcomed our largest
    incoming classes each fall. It appears that in an era where trust in
    higher education is eroding, families are increasingly turning to
    institutions that integrate academic excellence with moral formation,
    community, and purpose.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\  McClellan, H. V. (2025, January 3). Christian Colleges
    Continue to See Enrollment Growth. Christianity Today. https://
    www.christianitytoday.com/2025/01/christian-colleges-continue-
    enrollment-growth-record/.

        Those universities that have innovated academic offerings and
    developed co-curricular programs that appeal to more students and align
    with institutional identities have grown. We have seen this from coast
    to coast, from George Fox University in Oregon to Southeastern
    University in Florida. Colleges and universities affiliated with the
    Assemblies of God have seen enrollment grow by one-third over the last
    decade. Students at these kinds of institutions are thriving in
    multiple dimensions because of their time on campus, and recent
    research confirms how powerful these kinds of inputs are toward long-
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    term well-being.

        Harvard University epidemiologist Tyler VanderWeele and his
    collaborator, Byron Johnson of Baylor University, just released the
    first wave of findings from their path-breaking Global Flourishing
    Study, which measures how people are thriving in 22 nations around the
    world. \9\ Their research, which has been featured everywhere--from The
    Atlantic \10\ to The New York Times \11\--affirms a very simple reality
    that has been intuitive to the world of Christian higher education for
    centuries: when individuals live in an authentic religious community
    with one another, they tend to flourish. According to the research that
    involved 200,000 participants, those who practice their faith in
    community report higher-than-average scores in all areas of human
    flourishing. \12\ This includes measures of personal happiness, sense
    of meaning, deep relationships, physical and mental health, character
    and virtue, as well as financial and material stability. I imagine all
    of us in higher education aspire to build campus communities where our
    students can flourish for the rest of their lives. Yet so few campuses
    seem to be doing this well. Is there a possible way forward?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\  Global Flourishing Study. (2025). Unlocking the Insights
    Behind Flourishing. https://globalflourishingstudy.com/featured-
    insights/.
        \10\  Brooks, B. C. (2025). Why Are Young People Everywhere So
    Unhappy? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/
    05/young-people-global-unhappiness/682632/.
        \11\  Caron, C. (2025). A Global Flourishing Study Finds That Young
    Adults, Well, Aren't. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/
    04/30/well/mind/happiness-flourishing-young-adult-study.html.
        \12\  Marshall, P. (2025). Largest Longitudinal Study of Human
    Flourishing Ever Shows Religion's Importance. Providence. https://
    providencemag.com/2025/05/largest-longitudinal-study-of-human-
    flourishing-ever-shows-religions-importance/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 The Opportunity: Becoming More Student-Focused
        For decades, American higher education has been lured by the siren
    sounds of Federal research dollars as many institutions sought to
    emulate places like Harvard and Stanford out of a desire to enjoy
    similar prestige and prominence. The faculty-oriented culture of
    institutions like these is hard to replicate without significant
    resources, and the American public started to resent the ivory tower
    mentality that continues to permeate many university cultures. Yet, we
    don't have to abandon our whole orientation to move in the right
    direction. Might the solution entail an intentional shift toward a more
    student-focused approach on our campuses? This is not about treating
    students as consumers to be served or regarding higher learning as a
    mere transaction to be completed. Rather, a student-focused university
    culture is one in which the faculty and administration regularly ask
    themselves, ``What is best for our students' long-term flourishing?''
    when allocating resources, adding programs, or pursuing opportunities.

        Rooted in the rich tradition of the liberal arts and in a classical
    vision of forming the whole person, Taylor's approach prioritizes the
    development of character and community for students. Historian Bruce
    Kimball contrasts the modern research university's approach of what he
    calls ``the liberal-free ideal'' with a liberal arts tradition whereby
    education is not merely about knowledge acquisition or novel discovery,
    but rather is focused on preparing students for lives marked by
    service, leadership, and moral courage. \13\ At Taylor, we leave the
    liberal-free ideal for other kinds of places and embrace a liberal arts
    approach to learning and to life. We believe this better serves our
    students and prepares them for a lifetime of service and leadership.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\  Kimball, B. A. (1995). Orators & Philosophers: A History of
    the Idea of Liberal Education (Expanded ed.). College Entrance
    Examination Board.

        A decade ago, I was hosted in Beijing by a senior official with
    China's Ministry of Education. I was surprised to learn that, despite
    his senior role in Chinese higher education, he had chosen to send his
    daughters to American liberal arts colleges. He referred to the liberal
    arts tradition as the ``genius'' of American higher education, one that
    privileges breadth over depth, especially at the undergraduate level.
    He noted that research breakthroughs and creative solutions emerge not
    from the ``core'' of academic disciplines, but rather on the periphery
    of given fields. A liberal arts education, he noted, exposes students
    to learning across disciplinary boundaries; that formative kind of
    education prepares students to think across domains of knowledge,
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    integrating insights from multiple fields of inquiry.

        He noted that many Chinese institutions of higher learning
    prioritize depth in particular fields following an educational model
    found in places like Germany and France. He observed that even in the
    ``hard'' sciences, where deep expertise is often preferred to broad
    understanding, the wider academy outside of the U.S. had not produced
    as many breakthroughs as had come through American higher education. To
    prove his point, he compared the number of Chinese and American Nobel
    laureates. Indeed, in the 124-year history of the Nobel Prizes, there
    have been only 8 Nobel laureates from China across all categories, and
    only 3 in the sciences. By contrast, the United States has produced
    over 420 Nobel laureates, with nearly 300 awarded in physics,
    chemistry, and medicine. \14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\  World Population Review. (2025). Nobel Prizes by Country
    2025. Retrieved May 17, 2025, from https://worldpopulationreview.com/
    country-rankings/nobel-prizes-by-country.

        This disparity highlights the brilliance of our approach in
    America--namely, rigid specialization that is so common in ``liberal-
    free'' ideal frameworks (even for highly technical or applied fields)
    limits the kind of intellectual cross-pollination and personal
    formation that drives true innovation and creative breakthrough. By
    contrast, a student-focused, whole-person approach fosters curiosity,
    interdisciplinary thinking, and moral imagination--all conditions which
    empower graduates to explore, create, and lead in ways that make
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    lasting contributions to their industries and communities.

        Kara Gordon-Warren, a senior executive at a major foodservice
    distributor and a Taylor graduate, exemplifies this model, as a
    business leader whose vocational success is matched by a commitment to
    community impact, one that was nurtured during her years on campus.
    Kara's example reflects the enduring value of a liberal arts education,
    one that is rooted in character and service. She attributes her
    business acumen and professional versatility throughout her career to
    the educational foundation that Taylor provided, enabling her to adapt
    to diverse roles and leadership challenges with ease. Indeed, in my own
    scholarly research, I found that over seven in ten top American leaders
    earned a liberal arts undergraduate degree; the liberal arts approach
    to learning prepares young people to think across fields, to
    collaborate with others, and to pursue a higher purpose in their
    learning. \15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\  Lindsay, D. M. (2014). View from the Top: An Inside Look at
    How People in Power See and Shape the World. Wiley.

        At Taylor University, student development is not ancillary to
    intellectual growth. It is the University's raison d'etre, a central
    calling we share to form servant-leaders through intentional, whole-
    person education. At thriving institutions, every facet of campus life
    is designed to cultivate personal maturity, vocational discernment, and
    ethical character. At the United States Military Academy at West Point,
    where leadership formation is embedded in every dimension of student
    life--from physical training to cadet leadership opportunities to
    service-based clubs--student development happens not just in the
    classroom, but in residential, relational, and formative environments
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    beyond the classroom.

        America has benefited greatly from the novel breakthroughs in
    science and medicine driven by research at our top universities. At the
    same time, scholarly achievements must be tethered to moral reflection.
    As Albert Einstein declared, ``The most important endeavor is the
    striving for morality in our actions.'' \16\ Accordingly, universities
    today need to recapture a commitment to ethical and moral reflection in
    teaching and research. In so doing, the entire sector can move toward a
    more student-centered approach.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\  Einstein, A. (1981). Albert Einstein: The Human Side (H.
    Dukas & B. Hoffmann, Eds.). Princeton University Press.

        Faculty at student-centered institutions regularly hold class
    sessions in their homes over coffee. Staff members counsel students on
    big decisions; some even officiate at their wedding ceremonies.
    Institutions like Taylor provide a place for students to find mentors,
    best friends, and even spouses, developing relationships that last a
    lifetime. This is a key way in which colleges and universities advance
    the public good--by creating positive communities and collaborative
    networks that benefit their graduates for decades. This can happen in a
    variety of educational settings, but it often occurs in campus contexts
    where students and faculty know one another by name, where residence
    life supports the holistic development of students and where
    experiential learning opportunities (like research projects with a
    faculty member) happen regularly. At too many places these days,
    student life is focused on risk mitigation and regulatory compliance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But student life can be about so much more.

        A student-focused approach makes the difference. And the Federal
    financial aid programs are a key to that student focus. At Taylor, we
    rely on the Federal Pell Grants program, as well as Federal Work-Study
    and SEOG, to help needy families afford the cost of a degree. While
    Taylor contributes substantial institutional resources to student
    financial aid packages, these programs are a cornerstone of access to
    higher education for many of our students. In turn, this access allows
    us to play a key role in the development of the next generation of our
    Nation's leaders.

        We must start by creating meaningful opportunities for students to
    lead. In the most recent national HERI College Senior Survey, 65
    percent of Taylor students reported participating in formal leadership
    training on campus, compared to just 41 percent at peer institutions.
    Institutions need to create more leadership opportunities on campus
    because this is an investment that pays dividends for a lifetime.
    According to our most recent internal alumni survey results, 83 percent
    of Taylor alumni agreed that the University contributed to their
    lifelong engagement in service to society. Six in ten reported
    volunteering at least monthly with churches, nonprofits, or community
    agencies, far exceeding national volunteerism benchmarks. \17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\  Ray, J. (2025). Global Generosity: World Felt Less Charitable
    in 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/657200/global-generosity-world-
    felt-less-charitable=2024.aspx.

        This anecdotal evidence supports the broader findings from the
    landmark work by Alexander Astin and colleagues at UCLA, who have
    tracked over 22,000 students and found that participation in service-
    learning significantly increases long-term commitment to civic
    engagement and volunteerism. \18\ They conclude that service
    experiences in college not only foster leadership and social
    responsibility but also predict sustained involvement in service-
    oriented careers and community life long after graduation. John
    Molineux, a 2002 Taylor graduate and founder of Love Justice
    International, exemplifies a life marked by service over self, leading
    an organization that has intercepted more than 84,000 people across
    dozens of countries to prevent them from being trafficked. Indeed, his
    commitment reflects Albert Schweitzer's conviction that ``the only ones
    among you who will be really happy are those who will have sought and
    found how to serve.'' \19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\  Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J, Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A.
    (2000). How Service Learning Affects Students. Higher Education
    Research Institute, UCLA. https://heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/HSLAS/HSLAS.PDF.
        \19\  Schweitzer, A. (1935). The Meaning of Ideals in Life. The
    Silcoatian, New Series No. 25, 781-786.

        Students like John are grown in precisely this type of academic
    ecosystem where students can pursue big questions and worthy dreams.
    Indeed, these kinds of students can be found on every college campus.
    But are we providing an environment where these are, in fact, being
    pursued? Nearly nine in ten (87 percent) of CCCU students report that
    they are challenged to think deeply about complex issues from a faith
    perspective on their campuses. A similar measure (85 percent) report
    that they have developed the ability to think critically and
    analytically. \20\ The ability to think deeply and critically leads to
    success in a variety of career outcomes, and our graduates are no
    exception. Taylor's most recent data indicates a 98% graduate success
    rate (compared to an 86% average from the National Association of
    Colleges and Employers (NACE)), a 92% graduate excellence rate
    (compared to a 59% NACE average), a 96% acceptance rate into medical
    schools \21\ and law schools, \22\ all of which places us among the
    highest in the Midwest. \23\ Whether entering medicine, business,
    education, or the arts, Taylor students leave not only academically
    prepared but spiritually anchored and vocationally equipped to lead
    with excellence and humility.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\  Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. (2024). The
    Case for Christian Higher Education. https://www.cccu.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2024/07/CCCU-Case-for-CHE-Digital-FINAL.pdf.
        \21\  Taylor University (2024). Pre-Med Curriculum. https://
    www.taylor.edu/academics/programs/special-programs/pre-med.
        \22\  Taylor University. (2025). Politics & Law Major. https://
    www.taylor.edu/academics/degrees/politics-law.
        \23\  Taylor University. (2024). Calling and Career Office: Annual
    Report. https://www.taylor.edu/-docs/about/offices/cco-annual-
    report.pdf.

        Year after year, we graduate high-performing, servant-minded
    students who go on to make a meaningful difference. Dr. Colleen Kraft
    stands as a compelling exemplar of the value and reach of a Taylor
    education. A 1998 Taylor graduate, Dr. Kraft studied Biology Pre-Med
    and was a Leadership Scholar on campus. Following Taylor, Dr. Kraft
    earned her medical degree and has worked over 20 years at Emory
    University Hospital. An infectious disease physician and researcher,
    Dr. Kraft played a pivotal role in helping develop the protocols for
    handling the first Ebola patient in the United States, as well as
    helping develop national protocols for the COVID-19 pandemic. She
    recently served as the president of the American Society for
    Microbiology, leading one of the largest life science societies in the
    world. She credits the formative, purpose-driven education she received
    at Taylor for preparing her to serve professionally for the benefit of
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    society. We all need many more graduates like her.

        In response to growing consumer demands for customization and
    personalization in higher education, we have sought to embrace academic
    innovation, developing programs aligned with market needs, emerging
    industry trends, and key state and national priorities. Just in the
    last year, Taylor has established or developed a myriad of academic
    programs and initiatives. Our region, like many other rural areas,
    suffers from a dire shortage of healthcare professionals, and we have
    worked toward addressing this gap. As a result, we recently launched a
    School of Nursing and are in the process of establishing a Physician
    Assistant Studies graduate program. Like so many other independent
    colleges, we are driven to meet market demand through academic
    innovation and reinvention.

        Additionally, a few years ago, we developed a program called the
    Invitation Clinic whereby Taylor undergraduates work with community
    members to prevent diabetes and chronic illness through health and
    wellness coaching. In just 5 years, the clinic has served over 300
    community members, logged more than 6,400 patient contact hours, and
    achieved astounding and lasting health outcomes--an average of 17-pound
    weight loss per participant, significant improvements in A1c levels
    among prediabetic individuals, and meaningful increases in daily
    activity.

        Operating out of our on-campus fitness facilities, this program
    allows student trainers to design and implement individualized exercise
    plans for clients. Outcomes from these programs meet or exceed CDC
    diabetes prevention benchmarks and demonstrate the power of student-led
    intervention. Hundreds of our students have received hands-on clinical
    experience as undergraduates, and we have done all of this with less
    than $400,000 in external funding. The Invitation Clinic is not only
    transforming lives but also positioning Taylor as a leader in rural
    health innovation. This is one of many ways in which our student-
    focused culture at Taylor is creating opportunity and growth for our
    graduates and our community.
                The Calling: Expanding Access and Affordability
        A student-focused education of the type offered by Taylor is
    transformational, but it also must remain within financial reach. Too
    many of America's colleges and universities have become unaffordable
    for large segments of the country. But it does not have to be this way.
    Americans are a generous people, and our Nation's leaders established a
    number of smart policies at the Federal and state levels that have
    galvanized unprecedented generosity, to the benefit of many deserving
    students. And indeed, the wealth generated by the graduates of many of
    our Nation's top universities makes possible the incredible generosity
    we see in America. Coupled with individual philanthropy, the compact
    between institutions of higher education and the Federal Government has
    helped keep a college degree within reach for millions of American
    students for decades. This partnership is critical for student and
    institutional success.

        Thanks to our generous supporters, Taylor's average net cost for
    undergraduates (adjusted for inflation) has dropped 24 percent since
    2010, and our average undergraduate net tuition has seen a similar
    trend. Our total annual scholarships awarded to students have more than
    tripled over the same time--from $14 million in 2010 to $48 million
    today.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0602.101

        .epsTo make this possible, we have needed extraordinary
    philanthropy, and as we have made the case about why supporting Taylor
    students is a worthwhile investment, our donors have responded in
    remarkable ways. Before 2020, Taylor had never raised more than $25
    million in a single year, but in the last 2 years alone, we have raised
    nearly $250 million. This remarkable generosity is part of our Life to
    the Full campaign, the largest fundraising effort for a school like
    Taylor. We endeavor to raise $500 million through this effort, with the
    largest amounts going to benefit our students (through additional
    scholarship moneys) and our friends and neighbors (through the Main
    Street Mile Initiative, which is described below). While these
    remarkable results come from many major gifts, 87 percent of the gifts
    have been under $1,000, and so far, we have received more than 16,000
    gifts in this worthy undertaking. Similar results can be seen at other
    thriving faith-based schools like Baylor and Villanova where
    unprecedented generosity has directly impacted access and
    affordability. Institutional endowments are a critical component to
    student success for independent colleges and universities, like Taylor,
    which do not rely on direct state appropriations.

        This also contributes to wider dimensions of institutional
    thriving, including strong financial footing that allows schools to
    weather demographic challenges and industry headwinds. Last year, for
    the first time in Taylor's history, we received a perfect 10.0 score on
    the Composite Financial Index. Taylor has the highest possible rating
    of 3.0 on the Federal Responsibility Composite Score, as noted by the
    Department of Education. Just a few days ago, S&P upgraded Taylor's
    credit rating to ``A with Stable Outlook.'' S&P especially noted
    Taylor's success in fundraising, strong enrollment numbers, and healthy
    annual operating surpluses. As a Christian university, we attribute
    these good results to divine blessing, first and foremost, but they
    also reflect strategic decisions made by the University to live into
    our unique heritage and identity as a student-focused institution. This
    has required strategic investment and wise stewardship when resources
    were more modest (as was the case in our recent past) and fiscal
    responsibility as we have been able to leverage additional sources of
    financial, social, and human capital for our students. Many of our
    sister institutions within the CCCU have done much the same. For every
    dollar a CCCU student receives in Federal grant aid, our institutions
    contribute five dollars in institutional aid, demonstrating a deep
    commitment to both affordability and accountability. \24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\  Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. (2017).
    Building the Common Good: The National Impact of Council for Christian
    Colleges & Universities (CCCU) Institutions. https://www.cccu.org/wp-
    content/uploads/2018/01/CCCU-National-Impact-Final-Report-12.12.17.pdf.

        At a time when too many universities have become financially
    bloated, overleveraged, and (in some cases) overstaffed, my colleagues
    and I have sought to be good stewards of public and donor dollars. We
    have invested resources for maximum impact, prioritizing the needs of
    our students over palatial buildings or unnecessary staff. These
    investments have paid significant dividends not only in the lives of
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    our students but also in the communities in which our graduates serve.

        Anwar Smith grew up in a rough part of Chicago and came to Taylor
    to study Christian Ministries. As captain of Taylor's football team,
    Anwar developed strong leadership skills and a sense of personal
    calling that his life would entail a return to his home neighborhood,
    serving kids who would not get the chance to study at a place like
    Taylor. He could never have attended Taylor were it not for generous
    support provided by a Federal Pell grant (that last year benefited 323
    Taylor students) or Federal student loans (which benefited hundreds
    more). Investing in Anwar has made a big difference in his life and in
    the work he is doing through community transformation as the Executive
    Director of GRIP, an outreach organization that mentors and equips
    hundreds of urban youth every year.

        Like many of our graduates, Anwar decided to forego a lucrative
    salary in the private sector to mentor at-risk children. Like many of
    his classmates, he pursued a vocation that prioritizes human
    flourishing over personal comfort and wealth, but his efforts are
    making a huge difference. Indeed, organizations like his provide much-
    needed social service support at a fraction of what it would cost if it
    were channeled only through government-run programs. This is why
    educational policy must not penalize colleges whose graduates choose
    service over self when evaluating the outcomes of the very education
    that compelled them to undertake such noble callings. Particularly
    within Christian higher education, where 38 percent of students are
    first-generation college students and where one in three students are
    Pell Grant recipients, our institutions are not just expanding access,
    we are cultivating purpose-driven leaders who choose lives of service
    over material success. After all, the author Frederick Buechner reminds
    us that the individual's highest calling is the place ``where your deep
    gladness and the world's deep hunger meet.'' \25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\  Buechner, F. (1973). Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC.
    Harper & Row.

        We realize, however, that Federal moneys and institutional
    scholarships are not the only way to increase college affordability.
    Like so many other institutions, Taylor has institutional skin-in-the-
    game. Following a pilot program this past year, Taylor is launching the
    Good Work initiative. This program will transform on-campus employment
    opportunities into professional and vocational development catalysts
    for hundreds of students each year. The premise is simple: pay students
    more than minimum wage for on-campus jobs and combine it with strategic
    programming and intentional professional development. Through this,
    students will have more dollars to defray their educational expenses
    (thereby taking on less educational debt), and they will develop
    professional skills that will make them more equipped for the workplace
    following graduation. Generous donors are helping us launch the
    program, but we expect that, as the program grows, a number of students
    will take on responsibilities that might otherwise require additional
    staff hires. The institutional savings will fund the higher hourly
    wages for our students and help them better afford Taylor and secure
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    better jobs when they graduate.

        We caught a vision for this after visiting College of the Ozarks in
    Missouri a few years back and learning about other work-based colleges.
    There, student work assignments on campus help defray educational
    expenses and provide much-needed professional development for students
    while helping institutions accomplish everyday activities as part of
    running the institution. At Taylor, we have already seen the success of
    this approach with our top student leadership cohort, the Presidential
    Fellows program, and we expect it will expand as we help our students
    develop more skills in communication, customer service, negotiation,
    problem-solving, and time management. We hope to incubate this idea at
    Taylor for a few years, but if it is successful, we hope to offer a
    national model for reducing student debt burdens while equipping
    graduates with the skills necessary for personal and professional
    thriving.
                       The Goal: Communities that Thrive
        At many schools like Taylor, we have built a thriving college not
    as an end in itself, but because our faith compels us to give back to
    our communities and a world in need. We don't hide behind ivy-covered
    walls; we roll up our sleeves and serve alongside our neighbors.

        Taylor is one of 364 institutions recognized by the Carnegie
    Foundation and American Council on Education with the Community
    Engagement classification, \26\ evidenced by the good work of programs
    such as the Invitation Clinic and students who write grant proposals
    for local nonprofits as part of their coursework, who submitted nearly
    $450,000 worth of such proposals this academic year alone. This is a
    good group of worthy institutions. With this context, we launched last
    year the Main Street Mile Initiative, a community and economic
    development program that entails over $100 million in public and
    private investment over 5 years. This amazing program was catalyzed by
    a $30 million grant through the Lilly Endowment's College and Community
    Collaboration initiative, a pioneering program that awarded over $300
    million for university-based efforts around community and economic
    development.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\  Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education
    (2025). The Elective Classification for Community Engagement. https://
    carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/elective-classifications/community-
    engagement/.

        The Main Street Mile Initiative will result in some truly
    incredible outcomes for our community over the next several years. We
    will add over 100 new units of housing to our community and more than
    10,000 square feet of business and commercial space in our downtown,
    helping to launch 16 new enterprises and create dozens of jobs in our
    small community, aided by the more than $1 million in seed funding we
    plan to distribute for entrepreneurial ventures. A new collegiate inn
    and destination restaurant will capture hospitality spending from the
    more than 152,000 visitors expected in Upland each year, strengthening
    the local economy. We will add more than 5,000 square feet of new
    sidewalks and five miles of trails to our community, as well as double
    the size of our local public library, which, despite ranking in the
    bottom 10 in funding per capita for Indiana's public libraries, still
    manages to rank in the top 25 for highest circulation per capita.''
    \27\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\  Indiana State Libraries (2023). 2023 Statistics. https://
    www.in.gov/library/services-for-libraries/plstats/2023-statistics/.

        Taken together, these projects will push Taylor's economic impact
    in our economic growth zone to exceed nine figures by 2028. We are
    undertaking this noble cause after observing the good work of economic
    development spurred by major universities like Princeton and Purdue, as
    well as equally important ventures at smaller institutions like Colby,
    Colgate, and Sewanee. Universities across America have come to realize
    that we are not removed from our local communities but remain rooted in
    them. Indeed, higher education does not have to mean higher walls, and
    at Taylor, we are working to break them down every day.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 CONCLUSION
        Restoring public trust in higher education will not come through
    louder rhetoric or shinier facilities, but through the enduring
    strength of institutions that stand for something clear and compelling.
    When a university refuses to compromise on truth and teaches students
    to pursue wisdom rather than relativism, it becomes a place not of
    confusion, but of formation. That kind of moral rootedness creates the
    conditions for growth--drawing students, faculty, families, and donors
    who are hungry for something deeper than prestige. But formation cannot
    be outsourced; it must be carried out through deeply relational,
    student-centered academic environments that prioritize service,
    character formation, and leadership development as much as academic
    achievement. And for such an education to matter, it must be both
    accessible and affordable, requiring bold generosity, smart policy, and
    institutional discipline to ensure that purpose-driven learning is not
    reserved for the privileged few.

        Ultimately, the value of this kind of education is revealed not
    through faculty research or capital projects, but in the lives of
    transformed students and the flourishing communities they go on to
    serve. Despite some of the troubling trends we have seen in recent
    years, many of us have been transformed by our own college experience
    and believe American higher education remains the global gold standard.
    Scripture reminds us that the one who has been blessed with much is
    also responsible for much. We must renew our focus on moral purpose,
    student formation, and tangible societal impact. With courageous vision
    and principled investment, American higher education can reclaim its
    place as more than merely a knowledge producer, but as a nation-shaper,
    a community-builder, and the world's most powerful force for human
    flourishing.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, sir. And now I will turn to
    Senator Tuberville to introduce Dr. Brown.

        Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my
    pleasure to introduce our second witness, Dr. Mark A. Brown.
    Matter of fact, he is about 20 miles from where I live as we
    speak in Auburn, Alabama. Dr. Brown is the President of
    Tuskegee University, home of the Tuskegee Airmen.

        We are very proud of it. It is a historically Black College
    in Alabama. He is the first alumnus in Tuskegee's 143 year
    history to lead the university. A retired Air Force Major
    General, Dr. Brown brings unmatched experience in education
    leadership, Federal student aid policy, and HBCU advancement.
    We are thankful to have you here today to hear your
    perspective, Dr. Brown.

      STATEMENT OF MARK A. BROWN, PRESIDENT, TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY,
                              TUSKEGEE, AL

        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Senator Tuberville. Good morning,
    Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member, and other distinguished
    Members of the Committee. I am Mark Brown, as was stated.

        I am the 10th President of Tuskegee. I testify before you
    as one representative of our Nation's 101 HBCUs, and as the
    first alumnus to lead Tuskegee in our 143-year history. Between
    1986 and 1990, I personally utilized most forms of Federal
    assistance that we will discuss today. While I am now serving
    as a college President and retired Air Force Major General, as
    was stated, I began as an HBCU student who directly benefited
    from these vital financial aid services.

        But first, I would like to introduce you to two recent
    Tuskegee University Ambassadors, and I would ask them to stand.
    Behind me is Ms. Ariel O'Neill from Los Angeles, California.
    She is a military dependent. Her major is political science,
    and she is now studying for the LSAT.

        [Applause.]

        Mr. Brown. Next to her is Mr. Tyler Smith. He is from
    Atlanta, Georgia, by way of Milledgeville. His major is
    biology, and his aspiration is to attend medical school. He
    wants to work in family practice in rural areas. Thank you,
    Tyler, for being here, and Ariel.

        [Applause.]

        Mr. Brown. HBCUs represents just 2.3 percent of degree
    granting universities in the United States, yet their impact
    far exceeds their numbers. 40 percent of all Black engineers
    are HBCU graduates. 40 percent of all Black Congress Members
    are HBCU alumni. 50 percent of all Black lawyers graduated from
    HBCUS. 80 percent of Black judges hold HBCU degrees. 90 percent
    of undergraduate HBCU students receive some form of financial
    aid.

        Reductions in Federal needs based funding would negatively
    impact 9 out of 10 HBCU students. Today, Pell Grants provide up
    to $7,395 annually to eligible students. Yet this covers only
    31 percent of cost at an average 4 year public college,
    compared to 79 percent in 1975. At Tuskegee University, we
    recently celebrated our Spring 2025 Commencement, conferring
    degrees on nearly 800 graduates across undergraduate and
    graduate programs.

        For that same academic year, we processed over $22 million
    in Federal loans, including $5 million in Graduate Plus loans,
    $10 million in Parent Plus loans, and nearly $5.3 million in
    subsidized loans. These programs are not luxuries, but
    necessities for our students. Eliminating or reducing Graduate
    Plus loans without an alternative would severely limit access
    to graduate education, particularly for high need, high
    potential students in critical fields.

        This funding made it possible for students in fields like
    veterinary medicine, engineering, computer science, to afford
    not just tuition, but basic living expenses. This is not about
    dependency. It is about opportunity and investing in futures
    that will benefit society and our Nation.

        For example, we graduated over 60 new doctors of veterinary
    medicines just the last couple of weeks, with 100 percent
    securing employment almost immediately. With the projected
    national shortage of 24,000 veterinarians by 2030, Tuskegee's
    contributions help address critical workforce and national
    needs. There are economic impacts.

        According to a 2024 United Negro College Fund HBCU Economic
    Impact Report, Tuskegee University generates $237.1 million in
    total economic impact for Alabama. Our institution supports
    over 2,064 jobs, and for every job created on campus, another
    1.5 jobs are created in surrounding communities.

        For us, that is the Highway 85 corridor, about 55 miles
    between Opelika, Auburn, Tuskegee, and Montgomery. Every dollar
    spent by Tuskegee generates an additional $0.43 cents in
    economic activity throughout our region. Our 2021 graduates
    alone are projected to earn $2 billion in lifetime earnings,
    far more than they could have earned without their degrees. In
    the case of Tuskegee, we are ranked No. 1 in Alabama for social
    and economic mobility.

        Our 81 percent retention rate demonstrates our commitment
    to students' success, and our outcomes, again looking at the
    2025 graduating class, speak for themselves. 44 percent of
    those graduates secured full-time employment. 2 percent pursued
    graduate school. 7 percent entered professional school.

        Others continue into military service, post-graduate work,
    or volunteer programs like the Peace Corps and Teach for
    America. 74 percent of our alumni earn between $50,000 and over
    $100,000 annually. HBCU graduates earn 57 percent more in their
    lifetime than they would without their degrees. That is over $1
    million in additional lifetime earnings per graduate.

        Gainful employment, I will define that the way we define it
    at Tuskegee. We require an internship, relevant industry
    certification, and rigorous degree requirements for all
    students. This approach bridges the gap between classroom
    learning and workplace demands, positioning our graduates for
    economic mobility. This model honors our founder, Booker T.
    Washington's vision of educating the hand, the head, and the
    heart, making employment outcomes central to the educational
    journey.

        Evidence based programs with transparent historical
    outcomes should be aligned with Federal assistance.
    Universities should be incentivized to emphasize fields of
    study that result in positive employment outcomes upon
    graduation. While we achieve these outcomes, keep in mind we
    accept 30 percent of our applicants, compared to other schools
    who only accept 2 percent of their applicants. It is a risk-
    sharing model that fails to recognize the uneven distribution.

        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask that you consider with
    your tough budget decisions an evidence based approach.
    Continue reforming the Pell Grant and Federal work study
    programs to reduce reliance on Federal student loans.

        Incentivize evidence based gainful employment metrics
    rather than imposing risk sharing models that fail to recognize
    students that begin their educational journey in poverty.
    Incentivize industry partnerships with HBCUs to bridge the gap
    between classroom learning and workplace demands. I look
    forward to your questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows.]
                        prepared statement of mark brown
                                  Introduction
        Good morning, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and
    Distinguished Members of the Committee.

        I am Mark Brown, the 10th President and Chief Executive Officer of
    Tuskegee University. I testify before you on the State of Higher
    Education as a representative of the 101 legislatively established
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as well as a proud
    alumnus of Tuskegee University's Class of 1986. I come before you as
    the first alumnus to lead Tuskegee University in its 143-year history.

        I want to emphasize that between 1986-1990, I personally utilized
    most forms of Federal assistance that we will discuss today. While I
    now serve as a College President, Retired Air Force Major General, and
    experienced executive, I began my journey as an HBCU student and direct
    beneficiary of these vital financial aid services. I have two Tuskegee
    Student Ambassadors with me today. I would like to ask them both to
    stand.

              Mrs. Aryial O'Neal is from Los Angeles, California.
            Her major is Political Science, and she is now studying for the
            LSAT exam.

              Mr. Tyler Smith is from Atlanta, Georgia. His major
            is Biology, and his aspiration is to attend medical school.

        Thank you both.

        The purpose of my testimony is to highlight the Nation's Value
    Proposition in Education at HBCUs, with Tuskegee University as my
    primary example. I will address what I believe are universal HBCU
    concerns regarding proposed risk-sharing approaches, the value of
    gainful employment measurements, and the return on investment when job
    placement-focused education combines with Federal investments such as
    PELL Grants, Graduate PLUS and Parent PLUS loans, research grants, and
    land grants.
                    Historical Context and Current Landscape
        Historically Black Colleges and Universities were established in
    the 19th century to provide higher education opportunities to Black
    Americans who were barred from attending existing intuitions of higher
    learning. Today, the 101 HBCUs represent just 2.3 percent of degree-
    granting universities in the United States, yet their impact far
    exceeds their numbers:

              HBCUs confer 17 percent of all bachelor's degrees and
            24 percent of all STEM-related bachelor's degrees earned by
            Black students.

              40 percent of all Black engineers are HBCU graduates.

              40 percent of all Black U.S. Congress Members are
            HBCU alumni.

              50 percent of all Black layers graduated from HBCUs.

              80 percent of all Black judges hold HBCU degrees.

              HBCUs supply more Black applicants to medical schools
            than non-HBCU institutions.

        Tuskegee University was founded on July 1, 1881, by our first
    Principal, Dr. Booker T. Washington. His educational philosophy
    centered on training the ``Hand, Head, and Heart''--emphasizing
    practical education that integrated job training with classroom
    instructions. Students worked in their respective fields for part of
    the year and studied in classrooms during other periods. Many of our
    campus buildings were constructed by those early students, using bricks
    they made themselves-structures that are still in use today.

        This modal continues at Tuskegee, aligned with what we call
    ``Gainful Employment'' measures, reinforced through required
    internships and industry-appropriate certifications for graduation.

        HBCUs collectively serve approximately 219,327 students across 19
    states. Notably, 90 percent of all undergraduate HBCU students receive
    some form of financial aid in 2019-2020:

              83 percent received grants.

              65 percent took out student loans.

              4 percent received work-study awards.

              2 percent received Federal veterans' education
            benefits.

              18 percent had parents who took out Federal Direct
            PLUS Loans

        Any reduction in Federal funding, especially Title IV need-based
    programs, would therefore negatively impact 9 out of every 10 HBCU
    students.
                             Federal Student Loans
        The Federal Student Loan portfolio remains at $1.6 trillion with 42
    million recipients--the same figures from when I served as Chief
    Operating Officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid in the
    Department of Education. However, the number of borrowers increases by
    approximately 1 million per year, with accumulated interest accounting
    for a significant percentage of annual growth.

        We cannot reform the student loan portfolio without addressing its
    origins. These programs trace back to President Lyndon B. Johnson's
    Great Society Initiative, which aimed to provide greater access to
    higher education for students with financial need. The primary tool in
    this effort is the PELL Grant, supported by Federal Work Study. When
    these programs fail to close the gap on college costs, students turn to
    Federal Student Loans.

        The loan portfolio has grown partly because PELL Grants and Federal
    Work Study haven't kept pace with rising college costs. The PELL Grant
    remained relatively flat from the 1980's through 2010's, only receiving
    significant increases in the last 8 years.

        Today, PELL Grants provide up to $7,395 annually to more than seven
    million low-and moderate-income students. For context, a single parent
    with two children earning up to $51,818 adjusted gross income (225
    percent of the Federal poverty guideline) can qualify for the maximum
    award.

        However, this maximum amount covers only 31 percent of tuition,
    fees, room and meals at the average public 4-year college, compared to
    79 percent in 1975. Cuts to the program would put college out of reach
    for many more low-income students, while increased would represent a
    true Federal investment in education, reduce dependence on loans, and
    help address workforce skill deficits.

        As you may be aware, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
    stated in a report just last week that more than half of all Pell Grant
    recipients would be awarded less money to pay for college if the House
    of Representatives proposal in changing eligibility requirements were
    to succeed. According to their findings, this would impact more than
    half of Pell recipients negatively by receiving smaller grants. It is
    my hope that the Senate will reconsider this recommended policy change.
    Given the established benefits and need of the PELL Grant program.

        This dynamic is evident at most HBCUs. At Tuskegee University, we
    recently celebrated our Spring 2025 Commencement, conferring degrees on
    nearly 800 graduates across undergraduate and graduate programs. In the
    current academic year alone, Tuskegee processed over $22 million in
    Federal loans:

              Over $5 million in Graduate PLUS Loans

              More than $10 million in Parent PLUS Loans

              Nearly $5.3 million in subsidized loans

        These Federal loans, PELL grants, and institutional support made it
    possible for students in essential fields--Veterinary Medicine,
    Material Sciences, Computer Science, Social Work, and more--to afford
    not just tuition but housing, food and transportation. Eliminating
    Graduate PLUS Loans would severely limit access to graduate education,
    particularly for high-need, high-potential students.

        This is not about dependency--it's about opportunity and investing
    in futures that will benefit society many times over.

        For example, we graduated 60 new Doctor of Veterinary Medicine this
    May. By commencement day, 100 percent had secured employment, with most
    beginning work within 48 hours of graduation. The majority utilized
    some form of Federal aid, including loans.

        National estimates project a shortage of as many as 24,000
    companion animal veterinarians by 2030, even accounting for new
    graduates over the next decade. Tuskegee University, with the help of
    need-based Federal aid will help address this deficit. Similar
    scenarios exist for our graduates in Aerospace, Chemical, Mechanical,
    and Electrical Engineering, Architecture and other fields where the
    Nation faces critical shortages.
                               Gainful Employment
        Universities should be incentivized to emphasize fields of study
    resulting in positive employment outcomes upon graduation. Evidence-
    based programs with transparent historical outcomes should be aligned
    with Federal assistance.

        At Tuskegee, we now require an internship, relevant industry
    certification, and rigorous degree requirements for all students. This
    approach bridges the gap between classroom learning and workplace
    demands, positioning our graduates for the social and economic mobility
    that college education should provide.

        Tuskegee University is a national leader in social mobility--ranked
    No. 1 in Alabama. A recent UNCF report confirms that HBCUs like
    Tuskegee have an access rate twice the national average, with 88
    percent of HBCUs achieving mobility rates in the 90th percentile
    nationwide. This means we are exceptionally successful at moving
    students from the bottom 40 percent of income distribution to the top
    60 percent, creating genuine economic transformation. We open doors for
    first generation college students who often face economic challenges
    yet rise to meet these challenges with excellence.

        Our 81 percent retention rate demonstrates our commitment to
    student success. While we continue to improve our 6-year graduation
    rate, what truly distinguishes our students in their post-graduation
    trajectory. Looking at recent graduates, including the Class of 2025:

              44 percent secure full-time employment

              29 percent pursue graduate school.

              7 percent enter professional school.

              Others continue into military service, postgraduate
            work, or volunteer programs like the Peace Corps and Teach for
            America.

        Our graduates aren't just working, they're thriving economically.
    In fact, 74 percent of our alumni earn between $50,000 and over
    $100,000 annually. That's the real return on investment. For the 64
    percent of our students receiving financial aid, with a median graduate
    debt of $27,000 (below the national average of $32,000), Federal
    support isn't just helpful--it's vital.

        This success isn't accidental. It results from hard work, job
    placement policies, institutional support, and access to key
    resources--especially Graduate PLUS Loans.
                              Risk Sharing Models
        The social and economic mobility outcomes I've described are
    achieved while accepting 30 percent of college applicants. Educating
    and training a broader segment of society, including first-generation
    college students, is central to the HBCU mission. This mission, which I
    believe serves as a national necessity, inherently involves risk. Some
    students may require more time to graduate, additional intervention and
    certainly financial assistance.

        A risk-sharing model that fails to recognize the uneven
    distribution of risk among universities could reduce educational access
    for those who need it most-precisely those often served by HBCUs.

        As noted earlier, Tuskegee accepts approximately 30 percent of
    applicants, compared to about 2 percent at predominately white
    institutions of similar prestige. Yet our retention and graduation
    outcomes remain consistently high. We do more with less for students
    who are too often overlooked by the broader higher education system.

        Under the proposed College Cost Reduction Act (CCRA), institutions
    like Tuskegee could be held financially liable for student loan
    defaults. However, our students already face systematic barriers, and
    while our 3-year loan default rate remains manageable those figures are
    likely skewed nationwide due to COVID-related policies and deferment
    options.

        If CCRA policies pass without adequate safeguards, Tuskegee and
    other HBCUs could face:

              Severe financial strain

              Damage to hard-earned reputations

              Potential loss of eligibility for Federal aid
            programs

        This would devastate not just our institutions but the thousands of
    students who depend on us to transform their lives through education.

        It is not in our national interest to penalize institutions by
    doing the challenging work of economic uplift, community development,
    and workforce readiness. Instead, we should strengthen programs that
    incentivize gainful employment.
                    Tuskegee Approach: Hand, Heart, and Mind

        HBCUs serve as powerful economic engines for their states and the
    Nation. According to the 2024 UNCF HBCU Economic Impact Report,
    Tuskegee University generates $237.1 million in total economic impact
    for the local and regional economies of Alabama. Every dollar spent by
    Tuskegee University and our students generates an additional 43 cents
    in economic activity on our region, creating a powerful multiplier
    effect that benefits businesses and communities throughout central
    Alabama. This impact is particularly significant along the 55-mile
    economic corridor stretching from Montgomery to Auburn, where Tuskegee
    serves as a vital connecting hub. Our institution supports over 2,064
    jobs both on and off campus, and the report shows that an additional
    1.5 jobs are created in the surrounding communities, demonstrating our
    role as a critical employment engine for the region. Our 2021 graduates
    alone are projected to earn $2 billion in total lifetime earnings-far
    more than they would without degrees. At Tuskegee, we provide
    substantial economic benefits to Macon County and Alabama through our
    continued emphasis on educating the hand, heart and mind.

        We operationalize this philosophy by prioritizing internships,
    certifications and experiences that make employment outcomes central to
    the educational journey. For example, every member of our 2024-2025
    Freshman Class received IBM certification regardless of academic major,
    enhancing their employability across sectors.

        We have also increased the number of tutors and counselors in our
    Financial Aid centers to reach our Strategic Plan goal of reducing
    average student loan debt by 50 percent over the next 3-5 years.

        Finally, we leverage our 1890 Land Grant status to benefit both
    Alabama and the Nation. Our College of Agriculture, Environment, and
    Nutrition Sciences (CAENS) is one of our most popular colleges. CAENS
    provides cutting edge solutions to 21st Century challenges in Alabama,
    training local farmers in solar energy use for year-round farming and
    USDA-approved techniques for bringing cattle to market. True to
    Tuskegee tradition, these students also produce the leafy green
    vegetables used in our campus cafeteria.

        On the research front, Tuskegee partners with the University of
    Alabama Birmingham through a $12 million NIH grant ($3 million
    allocated to Tuskegee) under the Faculty Institutional Recruitment for
    Sustainable Transformation (FIRST) initiative. This program has
    recruited 12 promising biomedical researchers (9 at UAB, 3 at TU)
    specializing in cancer, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and
    neuroscience--fields directly impacting Alabama's most vulnerable
    populations, particularly in the rural Black Belt. At Tuskegee, our
    FIRST Scientists focus on prostate, breast, ovarian, and uterine
    cancers, addressing the high morbidity rates in our region.

        Interrupting this grant would not only disrupt crucial scientific
    progress but undermine transformative efforts to improve health
    outcomes and economic opportunity in Alabama. What our university does,
    and access to education generally, matters profoundly to the well-being
    of our state and nation.
                             Policy Recommendation

        Mr. Chairman, as the Committee approaches difficult budget
    decisions, I urge you to use an evidenced based approach and, if so,
    view higher education--particularly the vital mission of HBCUs as an
    opportunity to meet our national economic needs and to continue to
    stimulate the economy. I specifically ask the committee to:

            (1). Continue reforming and modernizing the PELL Grant and
            Federal Work Study programs to reduce reliance on Federal
            Student Loans.

            (2). Incentivize the use of evidence-based Gainful Employment
            metrics rather than imposing Risk-Sharing models that do not
            recognize the challenges of educating underserved populations.

            (3). Incentivize industry partnerships with HBCUs to bridge the
            gap between classroom learning and workplace demands.
                                   Conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, in September 1895, our first President Booker T.
    Washington delivered what became known as the ``Great Compromise
    Speech'' at the Atlanta International Exposition. Addressing an
    audience concerned with rebuilding the South's economy through
    international trade, he posed a profound question about the recently
    freed men and women who had not been educated.

        President Washington noted that one-third of the South's population
    was of African descent--today, that represents 1.6 million people of
    color in the Black Rural South. He argued that no nation can succeed
    while ignoring the talent of 33 percent of its population. In his
    words, nearly 16 million hands would either ``aid you in pulling the
    load upward or left uneducated that same 16 million would pull the load
    downward.'' The world could have it one way or the other--either ``one-
    third of the ignorance and crime of the South, or one-third its
    intelligence and progress.''

        Today, 129 years after that speech, Washington's vision has proven
    prophetic. Tuskegee has educated African Americans as he envisioned,
    with profound results:

              Tuskegee has the highest graduation rate of any
            school in Alabama.

              Tuskegee is the No. 1 producer of Black aerospace
            science engineers.

              Tuskegee ranks among the leading producers of Black
            engineering graduates in chemical, electrical and mechanical
            engineering.

              Tuskegee produces more Black general officers in the
            military than any other institution (including service
            academies)

              Tuskegee is still the largest producers of Black
            students with bachelor's degrees in Math, Science and
            Engineering in Alabama

        In short, the world needed Tuskegee and other HBCUs in 1895, and it
    needs them today to continue serving as economic engines for their
    communities and the Nation. In Alabama specifically, Tuskegee stands as
    a premier HBCU and ranks among the top economic contributors in the
    critical I-85 corridor connecting Montgomery, Tuskegee, and Auburn--a
    region vital to our state's continued development and prosperity.

        Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and Honorable Committee
    Members, for your time and this hearing.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Brown. I defer now to Senator
    Sanders to introduce the next two witnesses.

        Senator Sanders. Thank you, Chairman. Our next witness is
    Dr. Russell Lowery-Hart, the Chancellor for Austin Community
    College District.

        Under his leadership, Austin Community College District
    started a free tuition program, which has led to a 40 percent
    increase in enrollment. He previously served as Vice President
    of Academic Affairs for Amarillo College. Doctor--thank you
    very much for being with us, Dr. Hart.

    STATEMENT OF RUSSELL LOWERY-HART, CHANCELLOR, AUSTIN COMMUNITY
                      COLLEGE DISTRICT, AUSTIN, TX

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders,
    and Members of the Committee, thank you for hosting us. I want
    to thank you, Senator Sanders, for inviting me to advocate for
    community colleges, our free tuition program, and to underscore
    the importance of Federal support for our students that are
    uniquely missing from policy conversations that I hope to
    illuminate.

        As Chancellor of Austin Community College, we cover a 7,000
    square mile radius. We are larger than the State of
    Connecticut. We serve rural and urban institutions. We serve
    70,000 students annually as a comprehensive community college.
    And yet in the last 12 years, we have not raised tuition once.
    And Austin Community College and community colleges like us are
    the reason why I left universities over a decade ago.

        We are the entity in the sector of higher education where
    innovation goes to breathe, and where I think higher education
    is actually being re-imagined. We are the region's primary
    workforce education institution. We are proud to partner with
    our local employers such as Samsung, Tesla, major healthcare
    partners to launch careers where students can earn a family
    sustaining wage.

        Our moral clarity is a commitment to loving our students to
    success because this work is personal and the decisions that
    you do make aren't just political. They change trajectory of
    lives, of neighborhoods and communities. Our average student is
    named Ashley. We did a naming analysis and Ashley was the most
    common name in every demographic measurable.

        But there is nothing common about Ashley. She is smart. She
    is capable. She is ambitious. But she is not the college
    student that we often think about when we are making policy
    decisions. She is a 27-year-old mother. She is working two
    part-time jobs. She is responsible for a kid and probably a
    family member. She is first generation. She faces significant
    financial pressures.

        She is going to school part-time, which means she takes
    longer to get a degree. She is continually in a state of stress
    because she is one flat tire or one sick child care worker away
    from having to drop out of school, which then consigns her to a
    life of poverty when we could offer a few supports at key
    moments that could open up a life of wealth building for her
    and the generations that follow her.

        But her success is built on really important programs such
    as the free tuition program, Pell, and Childcare Access Means
    Parents in School, the CCCAMPIS program. All of these kinds of
    Federal supports help Ashley and ensure that she is able to
    overcome the significant life barriers that get in her way.
    Ashley, like 60 percent of our students, couldn't access $500
    in the case of emergency. 48 percent of our Ashley's are food
    insecure. 55 percent of our Ashley's are housing insecure.

        According to ALICE data, Ashley, living in central Texas,
    has to earn at least $60,000 a year just to keep her head above
    water. That means Ashley has to make nearly $5,000 a month just
    to get by with rent, childcare, utilities, transportation,
    basic needs.

        These aren't insignificant barriers, which is why the
    financial support is so important and why the potential changes
    to Pell, especially part-time Pell, could be devastating to her
    and the generations that follow her. Senator Hawley recently
    wrote in the New York Times, ``our economy is increasingly
    unfriendly to working people and their families.''

        This is especially true to working people trying to go to
    school to get a better job. People like Ashley, which is why
    the College for All Act could be transformative. But in central
    Texas, we are taking Ashley's challenges head on. She does face
    challenges in affordability, and community colleges are the
    sector that has taken on affordability with courage.

        Yet, in central Texas, in the last decade, 60 percent of
    our students a decade ago went to post-secondary education.
    Now, only 42 percent of students are leaving high school and
    enrolling. And working with Trellis Strategies, the No. 1
    reason they told us they weren't enrolling is because of the
    cost to attend college and that they had to get a full-time
    job.

        It is one of the most important decisions that our trustees
    made was to initiate their free tuition program. I am proud
    that my board chair, Mr. Sean Hassan, was a leader in this
    effort. It has dramatically brought students that didn't think
    higher education was possible back to education. They are
    staying in school. They are in workforce programs primarily
    that will lead to a family sustaining wage.

        It is why we are supportive of the proposal that would move
    10 millions of people from low-skill, low-wage work into
    industries that offer real career pathways at a time that our
    Country is challenged in places of innovation and global
    economy shifts. And community colleges, if funded
    appropriately, can be the answer to the global challenges that
    we seem to be struggling to meet.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lowery-Hart follows.]
                   prepared statement of russell lowery-hart
        Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and Members of the
    Committee.

        I am honored to serve my students, colleagues and community as the
    Chancellor of Austin Community College District (ACC) in Central Texas.
    The ACC District covers a service area of 7,000 square miles, which is
    larger than the state of Connecticut. We cover both rural and urban
    areas, serving about 70,000 students annually in the areas of academic
    transfer, workforce education, dual credit, continuing education, and
    adult basic education. We are the primary workforce-education
    institution in our growing region and are proud to be a foundational
    partner with local employers who hire our graduates. Together, we
    ensure the economic prosperity of our community by putting our students
    on a path to fulfilling careers where they can earn family sustaining
    wages. Thanks to Ranking Member Sanders for inviting me here today to
    uplift the important work of community colleges, to discuss our free
    tuition program, and to elevate the importance of Federal support for
    our students and their future employers.
              Community Colleges are our Greatest Economic Agents
        ACC and community colleges like us are not the same old model of
    higher education. We have evolved to become the primary source of
    talent fueling our local economies. With career academies offering
    certifications that move students directly into the workforce with
    marketable skills in high-demand/high-wage careers, we help students
    reduce the time from enrollment to that first significant paycheck.
    Community colleges, like ACC, glue employers and communities together
    so that every neighbor, and neighborhood, wins.

        Our employers need our students to be successful, and our students
    need you to help ensure this success remains within their grasp. I am
    here today to request your wisdom, temperance, and deliberation as you
    consider the future of critical tools--such as Pell, the Childcare
    Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program, student loans, and wrap-
    around support--that unlock opportunity for our students and employers.
    These programs transform students from people who rely on wrap-around
    services for survival into people who can build wealth, pay taxes, and
    achieve the American Dream.

        Higher Education is the best vehicle for upward social mobility in
    America and community colleges are central to that economic
    transformation. We are affordable, locally focused, and designed to
    meet the needs of our local economies. One of the most important
    decisions our elected Trustees made to ensure social mobility, was to
    initiate a free-tuition program--piloted with all Central Texas high
    school graduates. With this program launch, Enrollment of high school
    graduates at ACC jumped nearly 40 percent in fall 2024 compared to the
    previous year. The number of students enrolled in the free tuition
    program alone hit 4,982 in the fall, with retention looking strong--81
    percent of those students continued into spring 2025.

        There are proposals before Congress, including cuts and limitations
    to the Pell program, that would close off affordable pathways to
    education for the people who need us most--men and women, working two
    part-time jobs, still living in poverty, who would not be able to
    access our college were it not for this program.
           Community College Students are our Greatest Economic Hope
        Let me tell you about our average ACC student. And when I tell you
    her story--you will understand that there is nothing ``average'' about
    her or her journey. In fact, she is extraordinary in what she has
    overcome to be successful at our institution. She is representative of
    most of the community college students across our great country.

        We call her Ashley and she is a smart, hard-working, determined 27-
    year-old woman who works more than one part-time low-wage job, and has
    responsibility for at least one other person in her household--either
    caring for a child or someone else in her home. She is a first-
    generation college student, living with significant financial
    pressures. She cannot afford to take classes full time, so it will take
    her longer to complete her degree. She is continually in a state of
    stress because one flat tire or childcare falling through can mean the
    difference between succeeding or remaining consigned to a life of
    poverty and reliance on government programs.

        Ashley isn't Red or Blue. She is not political, (although she
    votes). Our economic future is connected to her success, and the
    decisions you make about her are personal--to her and to us. This work,
    and these topics, are about economic expansion, meeting workforce
    needs, and offering a path to the American Dream for our students.
    There are significant obstacles in Ashley's way toward that dream.

        Our collective futures are tied to changing Ashley's. Let me
    explain what her life is really like--because it's different from the
    political frames that often ignore or misunderstand her.

        Ashley lives in Austin. Almost 60 percent of our students couldn't
    access $500 in an emergency; 48 percent are food insecure, 55 percent
    are housing insecure (often with dependent children.) According to
    ALICE Data, Ashley--even as a SINGLE-person--would need to earn at
    least $60,000 a year just to keep her head above water. And this is not
    living high on the hog, it's just surviving.

        On average it costs Ashley nearly $5,000 a month just to get by,
    with rent, childcare, utilities, transportation costs, and the basic
    necessities of food capturing all of her income. And in this scenario,
    she has no margin for error. She lives her life in the hope that her
    child doesn't get sick, and that everything works perfectly in
    navigating her two jobs while she tries to take an online class and an
    in-person class at the same time.

        Ashely isn't struggling because she is terrible with money. She is
    struggling because she doesn't yet have the skills needed to be hired
    for jobs that would pay her the $100,000 needed to thrive and build
    wealth in our community.

        Despite documented barriers of child care, health care, housing,
    transportation and food insecurity, Ashley continues her education. She
    wants a better life for herself and for her family. She also wants
    critical workforce skills that will lead to a rewarding career. But
    without Pell, or without CCAMPIS, Ashley likely would never even come
    through our front door.

        That is the tragedy of Ashley--a tragedy that will play out across
    the country in millions of homes and apartments should Congress limit
    or cut these vital lifelines to economic growth. But I don't just want
    this for her because she is a student at my institution. I also want
    this for my community because it's good for business.

        Everyone talks about the Texas Miracle and the unprecedented
    economic expansions we have seen in Austin. What you don't hear is that
    we have had to import talent from around the country and around the
    world to fill those jobs while local people like Ashley have been left
    behind. And what's made this situation worse is that Austin is also an
    expensive place to live, with working poor residents increasingly being
    squeezed to the margins, and pushed out--out of the community, the
    classroom, and then the workplace. And it's happening to more than just
    those ensnared by generational poverty.

        We see this happening all over.

        In fact, Senator Hawley, in addressing potential cuts to Medicaid,
    recently, and powerfully, wrote in a New York Times guest essay: ``Our
    economy is increasingly unfriendly to working people and their
    families.'' This statement is also true of working people who are going
    to school for the purpose of getting a better job and climbing out of
    poverty. People like Ashley.

        As a leader, I am interested in Ashley's well-being. I want my
    institution to surround her with love and help her lift herself up out
    of poverty. Our community's economic health and vitality demands smart,
    scrappy and hard-working people like Ashley--people who will go on to
    gain critical skills in nursing, welding, advanced manufacturing,
    cybersecurity, or any one of the dozens of in-demand middle-skill
    careers--to fill the jobs that are being created in Central Texas and
    around the country.
            Federal Programs and Supports Ensure a Skilled Workforce
        This is exactly why limiting Pell would harm our community--
    especially for part-time students. Requiring a minimum number of
    credits to be Pell eligible leaves out blue-collar advanced
    manufacturing, cyber security, software development, health care,
    mobility and infrastructure in demand programs that pay people $75,00--
    $150,000 annually. Those are jobs that our economy needs filled. By
    requiring a minimum number of courses for Pell, you might even be
    requiring students to sign up for more classes than they need. wasting
    taxpayers' money, students' time, and extending time to employability.

        Pell is critical to ensuring students stay in school and shorten
    their time to skill attainment and employment. Yet, expanding Pell for
    unaccredited or for-profit programs almost always harms students.
    Predatory programs prey on our most vulnerable neighbors, leaving
    students with no employable skill or credential of value and a mountain
    of debt with no job through which they can pay it back.

        Changing Full-Time Pell from 12 to 15 hours could keep some
    students out of the in-demand workforce. Last year, over 5,000 Pell-
    awarded ACC students were enrolled in 12-14 credits and would lose
    opportunities and support. For some workforce programs in trades and
    healthcare, 15 hours a semester may not even be possible. While we
    would not want to raise eligibility to 15 hours, institutions could
    make policy and procedural changes to lessen the impact on students.

        For community colleges, part-time students are the overwhelming
    norm because of the life issues I've referenced. However, the Part-Time
    Pell proposed shifts from 6 hours to 7.5 hours would dramatically harm
    students and employers. Most academic and workforce programs usually
    take about 20 classes to complete an associate's degree. Level One and
    Level Two certifications leading to a family sustaining wage may
    require 5-10 classes. Each class counts as 3 hours toward a 60-hour
    degree. Part-time students, on average, will take 6 hours in each a
    fall, spring and summer term.

        Almost 80 percent of our ACC students are part-time. Our students
    can make two classes a term (six hours of course work) work in their
    busy lives, especially for those workforce training programs necessary
    to meet employer demand. Because our classes are 3 hours, typically,
    the 7.5-hour requirement for Part-Time Pell could reduce enrollments in
    our most important workforce programs dramatically. Classes are not
    organized by single hours. This proposal would force students to take 9
    hours--three classes--each term to receive support. Raising a family,
    working two part-time jobs, while going to school is incredibly
    difficult--and the many who could not afford to take a minimum of three
    classes would fall through the cracks.

        For the majority of our community college students, two classes a
    semester is their only option. Nearly 4,000 ACC students leveraged Pell
    by taking only 6-7 hours and would not be Pell eligible under the 7.5-
    hour requirement for part time. This is especially concerning for
    students who may be in their final 6 hours and would be forced to take
    an additional class they may not need. For ACC, this is an additional
    1,500 Pell recipients taking fewer than 6 hours who would probably walk
    away from the very pathways solving critical workforce needs. Without
    the Pell support, these students, and their future employers, could
    find themselves close to the finish line with no way to cross it.

        If Congress cuts CCAMPIS, students lose money to pay for childcare.
    If they can't pay for childcare they will have to drop out of school or
    they will take much longer to complete school. Supporting students with
    this critical childcare benefit is a great investment because if
    students receive the funds, they finish faster, get to work faster, pay
    taxes, and will no longer be dependent on government supports.
    Eliminating CCAMPIS for child care would ensure that at least 25
    percent of our students needing this support would simply drop out of
    school--hurting employers by limiting the pool of talent from which
    they draw.

        In fact, the CCAMPIS program allows ACC to lattice funding with
    other community partners to extend the impact and ensure greater access
    and produces a staggering 93 percent retention rate for those students
    receiving the support. This real-life scenario is not exclusive to
    Austin. The financial numbers may vary across our communities, but the
    experience of the financial squeeze students face is mirrored across
    the Nation.

        While Student Loan programs certainly need a deep evaluation, the
    lack of details on the risk-sharing approach to loans creates a great
    deal of concern and uncertainty. Currently, institutions have no
    authority or impact on the level of loans a student accepts. We can
    advise students, but we cannot limit the amount of loans for which they
    are eligible.

        We counsel our students and work with them to ensure they
    understand the costs and pitfalls of overborrowing. But, we cannot
    control all the decisions they make or all the challenges they may face
    that could lead to a default. I fear an unintended consequence of this
    risk-sharing proposal will result in schools cutting back on loans,
    resulting in fewer students enrolling at a time when demographic shifts
    demand that we attract more talent into the training pipeline.
    Certainly, the loan system needs attention. There are ways to include
    schools in the risk-sharing legislative process as partners in crafting
    policy that ensures students are not over-borrowing, and institutions
    are still able to produce the skilled workforce needed in our
    communities.
       Free Tuition Ensured Economic Mobility and Employer Profitability
        At ACC, we have taken our community's affordability issues head on.
    A recent study we commissioned showed that 57 percent of students who
    stalled in their applications before enrolling at the college cited
    costs or affordability as a reason. To combat this, we launched a free
    tuition pilot program for graduating high school seniors starting with
    the class of 2024.

        This program was made possible because the State of Texas and its
    legislature passed a change to the community college funding formula in
    2023 that budgets us based on success metrics such as completions,
    successful transfers, and degree attainment in critical workforce
    fields. These accountability measures have focused our work and are
    resulting in increased student success. With the increased funding due
    to better outcomes, ACC leveraged those dollars to ensure college
    remains affordable and launched its Free Tuition program pilot.

        This is a first-dollar-in program to allow students to use other
    forms of aid to cover living and emergency expenses such as rent and
    food so they can go to school, gain a credential, degree, and a hirable
    skill. This free-tuition cohort represented 40 percent of our new
    enrollments in the fall, returned ACC's enrollment to pre-pandemic
    levels, and these students are persisting and succeeding on their
    educational journeys. It's a good investment from our community that
    will have a significant return on investment for our economy and for
    the companies that are driving it. Employers support it because college
    affordability ensures they will have graduates with skills to hire.

        In a political environment where ``sides'' are pushed to the edges,
    there is room for collaboration and partnership between the Federal
    Government and institutions. At community colleges, our aim is to
    graduate students with as little debt as possible and our best-case
    scenario is graduating them with no debt whatsoever. It's one of the
    reasons behind the free tuition pilot program, our commitment to offer
    dual credit for free, and our deep partnership with our local
    employers.

        This is how education should work. The college, leveraging critical
    Federal programs like Pell, CCAMPIS and Loans, collaborating with our
    local industries, serving our communities, all to surround our
    students--like Ashley--with the support they need to get over the
    finish line and get on the way to a fruitful career.
             Supporting Students and Employers Elevates Communities
        The questions before us are clear: Do we want Ashley to spend a
    lifetime in poverty accessing public programs just to get by? Or, do we
    want to surround her with the right support, at the right time, for a
    short three or 4 years, and at the end of her journey have a lifelong
    taxpayer who has built stability and generational wealth for her and
    her family?

        ACC is leading the Nation on making higher education more
    affordable. We are proud of our work. Our nation should be moving in
    the same direction and offering Free College from the Federal level, as
    Senator Sanders has proposed. Long-term, this would move millions of
    people from low-skill, low-wage work into the industries that offer
    real career paths, family sustaining wages, and are at the forefront of
    American innovation.

        Instead, the proposals we are seeing considered in reconciliation
    to further restrict support for students who need it most are going to
    fundamentally harm the employers needing to hire skilled workers, harm
    the students I serve, and interfere with the programs our students, and
    their future employers, rely on.

        It doesn't have to be this way. I urge careful consideration and
    support in efforts to preserve Pell, CCAMPIS, and other effective
    programs designed to support employers and the students they need to
    hire.

        By maintaining and extending these supports, we can transform our
    poorest friends and neighbors into the taxpaying nurses, electricians,
    IT professionals, plumbers, and skilled workers who make up America's
    backbone.
                                     ______

        Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Dr. Lowery-Hart. Our
    final witness is Mr. Mike Pierce, the Executive Director and
    Co-Founder of the Student Borrower Protection Center.

        He previously worked to defend student-owned borrowers as a
    higher education expert at the Consumer Financial Protection
    Bureau. Mr. Pierce, thanks for being with us.

    STATEMENT OF MIKE PIERCE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STUDENT BORROWER
                     PROTECTION CENTER, ATLANTA, GA

        Mr. Pierce. Good morning, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member
    Sanders, Members of the Committee. My name is Mike Pierce. I am
    the Executive Director of the Student Borrower Protection
    Center.

        I also spent 7 years as a Federal financial regulator,
    charged with overseeing the student loan market at the Consumer
    Financial Protection Bureau, serving under both Presidents--
    serving under both Presidents Obama and Trump. For too long,
    the promise of a higher education has been pushed out of reach.

        Rising costs fueled by unstable state budgets, the
    diminishing purchasing power of the Pell Grant, the rise in
    predatory for-profit colleges have left too many drowning in
    more than $1.7 trillion in student loan debt. Over the past
    half century, we have increasingly privatized our public higher
    education system, forcing students and families to bear the
    growing financial burden of what should be a public good.

        I am here today to warn this Committee about the
    unprecedented economic shock facing tens of millions of working
    families across the country driven by a set of reckless and
    cruel policy choices made by President Trump. More than 21
    million Americans, roughly one in 12 U.S. adults, will
    experience immediate financial harm as this Administration
    pulls back on student borrower protections.

        These include nearly 8 million people who sought a lower
    loan payment but remain in limbo. More than 6 million people in
    default who now face wage garnishment and the seizure of their
    social security benefits. Nearly 7.5 million distressed
    borrowers who are now careening toward a preventable default
    cliff.

        These are families that are already contending with a
    rising cost of living in a moment of extreme economic
    uncertainty whose only mistake was going to school. Preventing
    the mass defaults of millions of distressed borrowers should be
    the top priority for this Administration and this Committee.

        Nearly 6 million people are already 90 days past due,
    enduring catastrophic damage to their credit. This will cause
    even borrowers with pristine credit to be locked out of the
    conventional mortgage market and to see the cost of a car loan
    double. Crucially for this Committee, borrowers in default lose
    access to Pell Grants and other financial aid, creating an
    often insurmountable barrier to college completion.

        Instead of working to diligently get these borrowers back
    on track, the Trump administration is blocking access to
    borrowers' rights to affordable repayment options. Today,
    borrowers are waiting on nearly 2 million unprocessed
    applications for lower student loan payments. We have been here
    before.

        In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, big banks and
    loan servicers similarly conspired to block families' access to
    affordable mortgage payments based on the mistaken belief that
    moral hazard would induce waves of ``strategic defaults'' by
    families across the country. As a result, Government efforts to
    help families avoid foreclosure failed. As many as 10 million
    families lost their homes, the spillover effects of this
    financial catastrophe prolonged the Great Recession, and it
    hurt us all.

        The Trump administration's actions may cause similar
    catastrophic harm to the U.S. economy and scar the family
    finances of a generation of working people. Rather than check
    the abuses of the executive branch, Congressional Republicans
    appear ready to abuse the reconciliation process to rewrite
    higher education policy, shrinking access to Federal financial
    aid, cutting or eliminating grants for about two-thirds of Pell
    recipients, removing guardrails that protect students from
    predatory schools, and placing enormous pressure on state
    higher education budgets.

        The result will push millions of families into the private
    loan market, and in the same bill, gut the CFPB, the regulator
    charged with protecting these very same families from predatory
    student lenders. This legislative war on regulators comes
    behind an extraordinary attempt to purge enforcement officials
    across the Federal Government.

        I want to express my solidarity with the workers illegally
    fired by the Trump administration who worked to hold student
    loan companies and predatory schools accountable, a mission in
    conflict with the Trump-Musk vision of crony capitalism.

        Building on this foundation, President Trump's proposed
    skinny budget further slashes critical supports that working
    families rely on to pay for college. These efforts create a
    perfect storm that will make students and families even more
    vulnerable. There remains strong bipartisan agreement that the
    student loan system is broken. America's grand experiment with
    debt financed higher education has failed.

        While we disagree on what comes next, one thing is clear.
    Our Government should focus on making the markers of middle-
    class American life, including education, cheaper for students
    and family. Instead, families are facing extraordinary
    uncertainty as reckless Executive actions and radical
    legislation push the American dream beyond reach.

        I want to close by thanking Ranking Member Sanders for his
    leadership in this fight. We deserve to live in a country where
    public college is free and there is no student debt, where
    higher education is an engine of upward mobility, and no one is
    forced to forego their dreams because they cannot afford the
    rising cost of a college degree.

        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pierce follows.]
                       prepared statement of mike pierce

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       [summary statement of mike pierce]
        Good morning, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and Members
    of the Committee. My name is Mike Pierce, and I am the executive
    director of the Student Borrower Protection Center. We are a national
    nonprofit organization fighting to eliminate the burden of student
    debt, protect people from predatory lenders, and expand access to
    opportunity across the economy. I'm also a former Federal financial
    regulator, overseeing the student loan market at the Consumer Financial
    Protection Bureau (CFPB) under both Presidents Obama and Trump.

        I'm here today to warn this Committee about an unprecedented
    economic shock facing tens of millions of working families across the
    country, driven by a set of reckless and corrupt policy choices made by
    the Trump administration. Our partners at the University of
    California's Student Loan Law Initiative estimate that more than 21
    million Americans--roughly 1-in-12 U.S. adults--will experience
    immediate, negative financial harm in the coming months as Education
    Secretary Linda McMahon pulls back on student borrower protections
    implemented under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

        More than just driving tens of millions of people into financial
    hardship, Secretary McMahon's decision to demand payment from borrowers
    before fixing the broken student loan system may cause catastrophic
    harm to the U.S. economy and scar the family finances of a generation
    of working people.

        Rather than take seriously Congress's constitutional duty to check
    the excesses of the executive branch, House Republicans appear ready to
    use the reconciliation process to reshape higher education--shrinking
    access to Federal financial aid, cutting grant aid for students who are
    least able to meet college costs, removing guardrails that protect
    students from predatory schools, shredding the student loan safety net,
    and pushing millions of families into the private student loan market.
    These changes will have profound, immediate financial consequences for
    schools and for students and shift tens of billions of dollars away
    from families at a moment when the economy is beginning to slow and
    analysts already project a recession on the horizon.

        In the same legislation that would push more students and families
    into the private market, the CFPB--the main Federal regulator and
    consumer watchdog charged with protecting student loan borrowers--is
    facing the prospect of a 70 percent reduction in its budget. Put
    plainly, the House Republicans' reconciliation bill does not just pull
    back on Federal financial aid, it also kneecaps the regulator tasked
    with protecting the same students and families who will be forced to
    navigate the private market should this bill pass. Taken together,
    these efforts make up a perfect storm that will make students and
    families even more vulnerable.

        America's grand experiment with debt-financed higher education has
    failed. There remains a strong, bipartisan agreement that the student
    loan system is broken. We disagree on what comes next. One thing is
    clear: Congress should reject Donald Trump's Project 2025 vision for
    American higher education. Our government should be relentlessly
    focused on making markers of middle-class American life--including
    education--cheaper for working families, not more expensive.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. I will now turn to questions, and I will
    defer to Senator Tuberville to go first.

        Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen,
    thanks for being here. I am passionate about this. I spent 50
    years in education. More than anybody in this room, probably
    maybe other than Dr. Brown. Although you spent a little time in
    the military.

        I have been in high schools all across this country, almost
    in all 50 states. We have gone backward. Here we are today
    talking about higher education, and I spent 30 years in that.
    And it has done a lot of great things for a lot kids, men and
    women, rich and poor. It has got to be merit-based, folks.

        If we don't merit base this thing, we will not survive as
    an educational system. This country gives you an opportunity. I
    was in a situation where athletics was merit based. I didn't
    care who you were. I had to win games. I recruited kids that
    had good grades, would go to class, and could play football.

        If they couldn't do those three things and work at it, I
    didn't recruit them. It has got to be the same thing in college
    in terms of getting a good education. I know of a school that
    has a happiness degree. That ain't going to get it. I am for
    paying everybody's way through college, but not for a degree
    where when they get out, they can't get a job at Walmart.

        We need degrees that kids can prosper and raise a family
    and have a great life in this country. So, I would like to ask
    each one of you just one question, starting over with Dr.
    Gillen. Dr. Gillen, what factor do you see that have caused
    massive skyrocketing costs at our universities across the
    country?

        Mr. Gillen. I would argue that the main driver of higher
    college costs is what is called the Bowen revenue theory of
    cost. And so, when you look at higher education--it is the
    Bowen revenue theory of cost.

        The idea here is that it is not that higher faculty
    salaries or increases in institutional aid are driving higher
    spending. It is that when more revenue is available, colleges
    will spend as much as they can. And it makes sense. These are
    all mission-driven institutions, right.

        Like if you give each of these schools $1 million more
    dollars, they will find a good way to spend it. The problem is,
    if you keep doing that, eventually those good ways to spend it
    aren't so convincing anymore. But when we have these mission-
    driven institutions, we just--the more money they have, the
    more they are going to spend.

        Senator Tuberville. Dr. Lindsay.

        Mr. Lindsay. I think the opportunity that is before us is,
    as you say, to bring accountability and outcomes. And I think
    we have to be very intentional about the kind of formation that
    is occurring on our campuses.

        I am really proud of the fact we have something called the
    Good Work Initiative, which is basically trying to transform
    on-campus employment opportunities where students are paid a
    little bit more than minimum wage to give them a little bit
    more spending money. But we also pair it with professional
    development and vocational discernment exercises to help them
    so that when they graduate, they actually have that kind
    professional experience. It is a pilot.

        We have had good success with it. We are allowing the
    opportunity for more students to take on more leadership roles,
    giving them good things for their resumes, but also buttressing
    their opportunities when they graduate.

        Senator Tuberville. Dr. Brown.

        Mr. Brown. Senator, I will use a real example. I went to my
    board of trustees this upcoming year and said I would like to
    freeze tuition for 2 years at our school. They approved the
    freezing of the tuition. But when I looked at the cost of
    insurance, which is a subcomponent of that tuition, we had to
    go up. So the real cost to the customer, the family, was more.

        The same is true of the cost dining, the cost of food that
    goes into a dining hall contract, and the cost of the utilities
    that it takes to run the campus. So my campus is much like any
    other business.

        Those costs we would not be able to absorb. And so, our
    costs went up because costs in the economy went up. It was not
    that we would spend more because we had more. Those costs were
    real, and we had to realize those as a school operates just
    like a business in that sense.

        Senator Tuberville. Dr. Hart.

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. Thank you for the question. I would say in
    the community college sector, there hasn't been a massive
    skyrocket of rising prizes. At Austin Community College, we
    haven't raised tuition in 12 years. I think we have raised it
    once in 15.

        We are the sector of higher education that lives within our
    means because our students are so price sensitive. And I think
    there could be a lot to learn from how community colleges
    effectively manage their budgets.

        Senator Tuberville. I agree with you on that. Been in a lot
    of community colleges. You do a good job, by the way. And I
    think more kids need to go to community colleges. Mr. Pierce.

        Mr. Pierce. I think it is my turn to talk about for-profit
    colleges, which seems to be missing from my colleague's
    responses to your question. We have watched the proprietary
    sector raise costs far in excess of other sectors of the higher
    education system.

        We have also watched some of the largest participants in
    the for-profit college market turn into private nonprofit
    colleges or enter into deals with public colleges. So, I think
    we are not in a place where we were a decade ago talking about
    the proprietary sectors.

        We should be looking at the backroom deals that some of the
    largest colleges in the country are cutting with these private
    companies and how these deals are driving the increase in costs
    that are being pushed on our most vulnerable students.

        Senator Tuberville. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.

        The Chairman. Senator Sanders.

        Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
    for your testimony. I believe that all of you mentioned Pell
    Grants, and I think the elephant in the room, as many of you
    know, right now there is a Republican-led so called
    reconciliation bill which will provide massive tax breaks to
    the very rich and cut programs that working families need.

        One of the programs that is being cut are Pell Grants.
    Where we are right now, the bill is in flux. Right now it would
    eliminate, this Republican bill would eliminate Pell Grants for
    1.4 million working class students and substantially reduce
    Pell Grants for 3 million low-income students throughout
    America. That is what that bill does. Dr. Brown, what does that
    mean for Tuskegee?

        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Senator Sanders. The vast majority of
    our students use Pell Grants. If you reduce Pell Grants, you
    will probably increase the amount used in student loans. If you
    cap access to student loans and at the same time reduce Pell
    Grants, you will hurt access to education for those who begin
    their educational journey in poverty or with significant needs.

        Senator Sanders. Mr. Brown, if you could convey that
    message to Republican Members of Congress, I would appreciate
    it. Dr. Lowery-Hart, what would that do to students at your
    community college?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. Over 75 percent of our students at Austin
    Community College are part-time because they are working two
    part-time jobs and raising a family. If the proposals to
    increase part-time Pell went into place--there are 5,000 Austin
    Community College students right now.

        They are taking between six and 7 hours that would lose
    Pell access, which means the workforce programs that they are
    engaged in, they might have to drop out of or withdraw from.

        Senator Sanders. Okay. I don't have a lot of time. Dr.
    Lindsay, what does that mean for Taylor?

        Mr. Lindsay. Pell is an incredibly important catalyst for
    hundreds of our students, and the expanded Pell has made a
    tremendous difference. I have seen directly--I have worked
    directly with students. I have seen how it has actually allowed
    them to be able to come to Taylor and be able to stay at
    Taylor. It is a huge differentiator, and I think all of us
    recognize the key difference that Pell has made.

        Senator Sanders. I hear the three folks who are running
    universities think that these kind of massive cuts in Pell
    Grants would have a very negative impact on the lives of your
    students. Am I hearing that? I am hearing that. All right.

        Dr. Lowery-Hart, talk a little bit--to me, education is a
    human right, like healthcare. Whether you are rich, poor,
    young, old, I think you should be entitled to it. And I think
    as an investment for our Country, wanting the best, the
    strongest possible, and best-educated workforce, it makes sense
    to encourage all of our people. I understand you have a young
    man who wants to go to medical school behind you.

        Dr. Brown, I don't know what his financial circumstances
    are, but if you don't have a lot of money, he will graduate
    medical school, many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars in
    debt at a time when we desperately need primary care
    physicians.

        Dr. Lowery-Hart, what has been your experience in providing
    free tuition for the students in the Austin area?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. It has been transformative for the
    families that we serve. Our enrollment has returned to pre-
    pandemic levels. Our students are now enrolled in workforce
    programs that will lead to a family sustaining wage.

        We saw a 40 percent increase in enrollment based on the
    free tuition program. And it is already producing outcomes in
    increased retention and success in the classroom.

        Senator Sanders. What I am hearing from you is the
    investment that has been made in those students is going to pay
    off in a whole lot of ways.

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. Yes. The ROI on this is undeniable. Every
    economist will tell you that education attainment is the
    biggest predictor of which communities are going to succeed or
    fail. And right now in Austin, we are importing talent from all
    over the globe, and we need to be investing in our own local
    students, and the free tuition program is helping us do that.

        Senator Sanders. Mr. Pierce, what is your sense of what
    free tuition would mean to working class families in this
    country?

        Mr. Pierce. It would mean widespread economic opportunity.
    And it is not just for those families that are going to be able
    to get a job with a family sustaining wage. It is for all of
    us.

        Our communities are better off when we have more education.
    There is more innovation. There is better jobs. There is an
    economy that we built in the middle of the 20th century that
    was the envy of the world. We get back there by educating our
    workforce.

        Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

        The Chairman. My turn. Dr. Brown, you have written about
    the challenges facing the Parent Plus program and pointed out
    that HBCU students and parents rely on Parent Plus, but
    sometimes it saddles the family with debt they cannot pay.

        That which is extended in compassion becomes a shackle
    keeping them from growth. Can you comment on that, please? And
    those are my words, not yours, but I feel just as passionately
    as you.

        Mr. Brown. Yes, Senator Cassidy. I agree that the Parent
    Plus loans and loans in general create a financial burden on
    students that is not sustainable. Specifically, if a family has
    an estimated family contribution of zero, and then you extend a
    Parent Plus loan to that family, what is the likelihood that
    family will, with any reason, be able to pay it?

        But it is a far more complex question than that, because if
    you remove those loans without an alternative, history tells us
    that stops access. And so, I think if we go back to the
    founding of the whole Title IV program, this was supposed to be
    solved within the Pell Grant part of the program and not within
    the loan part.

        The loans create a debt trap. It creates and takes away the
    social and economic mobility that is intended of education. So
    I wish we did not need the loans at all. But until we do
    something to reform the level of Pell Grant, it ends up being
    the difference in access.

        I will offer one more example. In 2011, when there were
    credit changes to the Parent Plus loan system, we saw
    immediately a decline of over 3--around 3 to 4 percent of
    students who attended HBCUs, while enrollment was going up at
    other schools.

        In a sense, we made education available for the elite and
    we did not make education available for the masses.

        The Chairman. But the Parent Plus program, again, as we
    have--I am looking at some statistics. I understand that about
    a 34 percent borrow more than the $50,000 cap being proposed.

        I have heard stories of people borrowing for multiple kids
    and they end up--just incredible debt. They are drowning in
    debt from this. So I think what you are saying is that there
    needs to be another way to finance it?

        Mr. Brown. I am saying it is the wrong tool for social and
    economic mobility. The loan is the wrong tool, but it is the
    only tool unless there is an alternative to make sure you
    ensure access.

        It is definitely the wrong tool for--you don't give a
    person who can't make a payment a loan. You instead would do a
    different tool. And again, I believe that the intent of the
    original Higher Education Act was to fix this within the Pell
    Grant program.

        The Chairman. Dr. Lindsay, there has been a lot of
    conversation about the lack of moral clarity on college
    campuses, and about tolerance of incivility that then becomes
    violent, and about counseling people with different views.

        Now, you are a Christian organization, and I imagine there
    would be very noxious views. And so, there is a tension there,
    the counseling versus the moral clarity. In your experience--
    because obviously your enrollment is growing.

        You are doing very well. How do you manage that tension
    between some viewpoint which might be noxious to your theology,
    but at the same time having moral clarity?

        Mr. Lindsay. I think fundamentally we believe that all
    truth is God's truth, so we are not afraid to engage on
    difficult topics or difficult issues.

        I was on the faculty of Research One University for a
    number of years, and I would say at Taylor I feel like we have
    more freedom to engage in difficult or contentious topics than
    I ever faced on that Research One campus. I think part of what
    happens is that when you are part of a community that has a
    shared side of moral commitments, which we do, it sort of
    creates a degree of freedom within a framework of faith.

        We have found that our students really thrive with the
    opportunity. We want our students to be really well equipped to
    engage all of the pressing issues. And they are not simple
    answers. We know that. So you have got to be able to engage
    those variety of concerns in a thoughtful and deliberative way.

        The Chairman. If somebody came advocating for polygamy,
    they could speak, but it would be in the context of an audience
    which had a well-grounded sense of moral clarity.

        Mr. Lindsay. We have students who are incredibly thoughtful
    about their theological commitments and how it informs their
    academic pursuits. We welcome any speaker to come to our
    campus. I think they will find that our students are engaging,
    prepared, and bring a degree of clarity to the pressing moral
    issues we see in our day.

        The Chairman. Dr. Gillen, Dr. Brown just spoke about, Okay,
    we know that these Parent Plus programs really end up burdening
    people with tremendous debt.

        You made the statement that sometimes increased revenue is
    spent, but there is diminishing return in terms of the benefit,
    however you define the benefit. But he said, if you cut the
    graduate--the Parent Plus, then how do you replace it? There is
    a tension there. Please, from your perspective, how is that
    tension addressed?

        Mr. Gillen. Yes, absolutely. So I totally agree that the
    Parent Plus is the wrong tool to try and address this problem.
    I actually had a paper out that argued we should get rid of
    Parent Plus and increase Pell Grant to make up the gap that
    parents were contributing to their students' education.

        That is one option increase the Pell Grant. Another option
    is just rely more on the private sector to do that lending.
    Because the main problem with the Parent Plus loan right now is
    that they are not doing kind of credit checks.

        You are giving students--or you are giving parents who
    can't afford the debt a huge amount of debt, whereas private
    lenders wouldn't make those loans because they are not going to
    get repaid.

        The Chairman. You are not disputing that they might need
    the money. You just think there is a better, more wise way to
    finance it. Okay.

        Senator Hassan.

        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Sanders for this hearing. And to the panel, thank you all for
    really clear and compelling and interesting testimony. And I
    think it is really important, just framing this a little bit,
    for a lot of time, the debate about higher education since I
    have been here is about either we should increase scholarships.

        I agree, actually, we should expand Pell more for all the
    reasons many of you have talked about. And I also am very
    concerned about the current Republican Congressional proposal
    to cut back on Pell and make it harder for working students in
    particular. But it is also true that we should make higher
    education less expensive and have more alternatives for
    students as we move forward.

        Since I have been here, I have focused a lot on bipartisan
    ideas that would actually just help us lower costs for students
    and make higher education more accessible. So I want to get at
    a couple of those things with all of you this morning.

        I want start with you, Mr. Pierce. Because one of the
    things we have to start with is how difficult the FAFSA process
    is right now. We can all agree that the rollout of the
    simplified FAFSA could have and should have gone a whole lot
    better. Students and institutions deserve a well-functioning
    FAFSA process and expert staff to turn to in the Federal
    Student Aid Office when in need of assistance.

        However, the Trump administration announced in March that
    it was slashing Department of Education personnel by half.
    Within 24 hours after those RIFs were announced, the FAFSA site
    was down for several hours.

        Mr. Pierce, how has the Administration's chaotic and
    arbitrary cuts at the Department of education impacted
    operations? And are there concerns that the agency will be able
    to fulfill its legal obligations without adequate staff?

        Mr. Pierce. We are already watching the Office of Federal
    Student Aid come apart at the seams. There was a new study put
    out just this morning by the National Association of Student
    Financial Aid Administrators, the trade group that represents
    school financial aid offices.

        They surveyed their members and they found that nearly 60
    percent of school financial aid offices already report delays
    and difficulty getting somebody on the phone at the Office for
    Federal Student Aid.

        That comes at a moment where we have just survived a
    disastrous financial aid cycle, where students and families are
    scared they won't be able to figure out how to navigate our
    complicated financial aid system. This is the wrong time to cut
    staff.

        Senator Hassan. Thank you. Dr. Lowery-Hart, I want to talk
    about credit transfer costs, which sounds kind of arcane, but
    actually, according to research by Southern New Hampshire
    University, is a real issue. Students who transfer to a public
    4 year institution lose on average almost half of their
    credits, the credits that they have already accrued when they
    transfer.

        The overall cost of transferring is about $13,000 when you
    include lost credits, transcript request fees, and a whole lot
    of other things. In addition to financial cost, students lose
    valuable time and are less likely to complete their degree.
    This is just one of the ways that college is too expensive.

        What more must be done to remove credit transfer barriers,
    and is there a role for the Federal Government to play here?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. Well, first of all, I think community
    colleges actually make the attainment of a bachelor's degree
    more affordable. Two years, plus two. It is going to require
    higher education to align itself. In Austin, we have aligned
    with Texas State, the BATS to CATS program, with St. Edward's
    University a Catholic institution.

        Faculty to faculty alignment to ensure no credit loss.
    Scholarships waiting for them. Data sharing. Advising those
    students to the university degree plan from day one. Those are
    things that aren't just best practice, they should be required.

        Senator Hassan. I appreciate that. And Senator Young and I
    have a--last session introduced Fast Track to and through
    college. And one of the other things we could do is align high
    schools who have got students ready to do college level work so
    that the students are doing work in high school, getting those
    credits in place.

        Now, maybe to get your bachelor's, you only need to go two
    or 3 years to higher education. Dr. Lowery-Hart, also I just
    wanted to talk to you about borrower education and
    transparency. One common sense step that we can take to help
    drive down student loan debt and increase consumer transparency
    is by making sure that the student financial aid process is
    clear and easy to navigate on the front end.

        Senators Grassley, Smith, Tuberville, and I have
    reintroduced the Understanding the True Cost of College Act,
    which would create a financial aid offer form so that students
    can more easily compare financial aid packages between schools
    and determine what is the best fit for them.

        How will reducing the complexity of the Federal financial
    aid system and empowering students with information on the
    front end help students access and afford college?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. First of all, please make that happen.

        [Laughter.]

        Senator Hassan. Okay.

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. It is one of the biggest barriers,
    especially when you are talking about first generation college
    students who may not have familial support to make sense of the
    bureaucracy.

        It is why at Austin Community College we do have a
    financial literacy requirement before students sign any loan or
    even scholarship. It is a very cumbersome, difficult process to
    articulate for people that don't have experience with it.

        Senator Hassan. Yes. And even for those of us who do,
    shepherding students through it--and children through it is a
    challenge. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

        The Chairman. I will note that under Chairman Alexander and
    Ranking Member Murray, this body pushed to make FAFSA more
    understandable. The work that had been done in Trump 1 was
    discarded by Biden's administration, and they never could meet
    their deadlines. And so, unfortunately, Trump 2 is having to
    rebuild from something which was a disaster.

        Senator Hassan. It is something we should be able to work
    on together, all of us.

        The Chairman. Yes.

        Senator Marshall.

        Senator Marshall. All right. Thank you, Chairman and
    Ranking Member. And welcome to our guests. The student that the
    Ranking Member spoke about was me. I was the student that
    graduated first in a class of 200, had ACT scores that were
    really good.

        I applied to Kansas State, Kansas University, thinking this
    is where I am going to go, but I would have had to borrow money
    to do it. So instead, I chose a community college. As I could
    tell Calc 1 was Calc 1, Comp 1 was Comp 1. And the point I am
    trying to make is everybody makes decisions, and part of it
    should be financial.

        I sat here and looked this up a second ago. The tuition at
    a community college, on average, $5,000 a year. A state
    university, $12,000. If you are going to an out-of-state
    university, it is $30,000. And a private school is $43,000. So
    that first year in community college, I spent $5,000--well, I
    spent way less than that.

        But today you spend $5,000 versus $43,000. And I would note
    that the cost of living, typically in community colleges
    cities, is a lot less than the big university cities as well.
    So I think the question is, at what point should the Federal
    Government reward people for making financial decisions that
    they should be responsible for? But it is a lot more than just
    choosing the school.

        Students today, they are told to take 5 years to go to
    college, when it should easily be done in 4 years. One way you
    can do that is to rack up some credits in high school. It is
    why we support the Perkins Grants as well. So maybe you enter--
    a lot of students today had the opportunity to enter that first
    year of college and already have a semester underneath their
    belt.

        I think that is a false narrative out there that it should
    take 5 years. I made decisions through my whole life on whether
    to borrow money or to work. So I worked part-time jobs in high
    school, community college, college, med school. Even residency
    I worked part-time jobs rather than borrow money.

        When we had our first child in medical school, I chose to
    join the Army Reserve as opposed to borrowing money. And I
    understand that some people are going to do better in a private
    college. Knock your socks off. Some people are going to do
    better--I just can't imagine who that student is that couldn't
    do just as good at a community college.

        Somehow financial literacy should be important to making
    that decision. And of course, Dr. Lowery-Hart, you are my
    community college person here. Do your kids struggle when they
    go on to universities and on to med school, and was it Okay
    that they started there at a community college? How much money
    did they save?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. Well, depending on where they went, the
    level of savings will vacillate. But they all saved money
    starting in a community college. And the data is pretty clear.

        My colleagues will affirm if they go back to their IR
    shops. Community colleges that transfer to universities perform
    at or better than students that originated at those
    universities. They are well prepared. And it is because of what
    you just mentioned. Calc 1, Comp 1 are the same.

        The difference at a community college is they are being
    taught by a master's or Ph.D. prepared experienced teacher, not
    a graduate assistant. And so, I think the instructions in those
    basic courses are better at a community college because our
    faculty are more experienced in teaching in those areas.

        The dual enrollment piece, Senator Marshall, is really
    critical. It can be a solution for making college more
    affordable. It was for my own three kids, all of which went to
    a community college before university.

        The challenges for the millions of adults that need to come
    back and upskill, and how they can afford it while still
    working, is why I think Pell eligibility is particularly
    important.

        Senator Marshall. Just speak a little bit more about the
    flexibility of a Pell Grant. More and more, the great paying
    jobs, if we can just get them in the door for six or 8 hours at
    a time, how important would that be to you?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. Really important. There are level one
    certifications that can lead to a family sustaining wage. And
    those students can enter that profession, whether it is at
    Tesla or Samsung, work for 6 months, come back and get the next
    level of certification.

        Those stackable credentials are what will change their
    family's generations to come, but also ensure that our
    communities are able to meet the moment that we are and the
    economic challenge that we have.

        Senator Marshall. I am sure--you don't have to answer this
    question. I need to wrap up. But you see time and time again
    the story of a person that came back in a year or two and
    continued that education. And that particular person ends up
    being just a superstar on the job site. So, thank you,
    Chairman, and I yield back.

        The Chairman. Senator Kim.

        Senator Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I actually want
    to start by something that you had raised in your remarks,
    which is that part of this conversation is about what value
    does education give to our Nation? How do we make education as
    valuable to our Country?

        I think that idea of value, we have to keep in mind, it is
    not just about the cost and the price tag. And I guess I just
    want to address this issue about risk sharing. So I am trying
    to comprehend this a little bit more in my mind in terms of how
    do you hold college, university responsible for, in many ways,
    some of the personal actions and decisions that a former
    student could be making, whether or not they can pay back their
    loans.

        Dr. Brown, I guess I just wanted to ask you, I mean, you
    have talked a lot about just the holistic challenges facing
    some of these students that are at your institution. What are
    the different factors that you can imagine would affect an
    ability for a former student to pay back loans?

        I would imagine it is not just about the wages. Certainly
    that is part of it. But also about healthcare costs that they
    might have, emergencies. What are some of the other things you
    could imagine?

        Mr. Brown. Well, Senator, just to be clear on risk sharing,
    at our school, we accept 30 percent of our students that apply.
    Some schools accept 2 percent or 3 percent. And so, there is a
    mission of the Historically Black College and University to
    serve a larger swath of the country.

        The economic outcomes, as I said earlier in my statement,
    are significant. They do better. They achieve social and
    economic mobility. However, I think the biggest threat to
    paying back loans are those students who don't complete
    college, and I think the data will support that. And the
    reasons that they don't compete college are often related to a
    lack of finances.

        Again, I would ask that as we consider formulas for risk
    sharing, you also consider that the risk is not equal among
    colleges. And if you decide that you will service a larger
    group, then your risk is obviously going to be higher.

        The return for the country, however, may be, and I think
    the data supports this, far greater when you look at the social
    and economic mobility and the earning power of those students
    who you took a risk on.

        Senator Kim. When you are looking at this issue about risk
    sharing, I mean to the point you mentioned, I mean, I could see
    a potential consequence of this being such that schools may be
    less--I guess maybe they would be more hesitant perhaps to
    admit certain types of students if they have lower economic
    backgrounds, other types of potential concerns that they might
    have in terms of the ability for that person to be able to pay
    back loans. I know there is some talk about offsets there, but
    Dr. Brown, would that potentially be something that could be an
    unforeseen consequence?

        Mr. Brown. I think an unintended consequence, and I am sure
    it is unintended, but it could happen, is that we become more
    selective on who we allow to enter a school. And that probably
    should not be the basis for entering college.

        If someone comes from a low income or first generation
    college student, like many HBCUs service, you would not want
    that to be a determining factor if you would allow that person
    to enter college because your risk goes up. And nor do I
    believe that HBCUs would do that, given our historical mission
    of serving those very students.

        Senator Kim. Dr. Gillen, I want to just go back to you to
    just kind of get your perspective on this. I am having trouble
    understanding like how it is that we try to single out colleges
    and universities in terms of that risk when there are so many
    other issues.

        I mean, some of the people I have talked to that struggle
    to pay back their loans it's because their parents got sick, or
    they have kids and challenges on that front. Like there are
    different factors that affect. How do you try to go about
    teasing that out?

        Mr. Gillen. Yes, absolutely. So those types of factors will
    tend to be sort of randomly distributed among all colleges. And
    so, if you do kind of like the median random life disasters
    exemption, I think you account for most of that.

        What I think the big value of the risk sharing proposals
    are is it makes it so that the college cannot profit from
    offering an education that leaves the student and the taxpayers
    worse off. Because right now they can because they get all that
    tuition money up front. They get to keep that, even if the
    student never repays the loan.

        That to me is the big advantage of the risk sharing, is
    weeding out those--that portion of the higher education sector.
    But yes, you are absolutely right. Like there is going to be
    random life circumstances. And I think if you do a general
    small exemption, like 3 percent----

        Senator Kim. Yes. So, I mean, look, I just wanted to share
    just how much this could be very damaging in a lot of different
    ways and the unintended consequences as mentioned.

        The other thing I just want to raise in my final seconds
    here is just, I think it also has the potential to threaten
    just the undermining--threaten and undermine our tradition of
    liberal arts education as a whole as well, and part of what we
    have really profited by in this country is the creativity and
    innovation. Not necessarily I have studied in other countries
    and seen how they are much more driven toward just specific
    careers.

        But I think we benefit from the education, the creativity
    that is out there. And if we are moving in a direction, I could
    see how this type of action could potentially put colleges to
    say, oh, we are going to start to divest in our humanities
    programs, arts programs, and other things like that, if that is
    going to not be as profitable or be a greater risk that we have
    bringing on those types of students.

        I just want this Committee to be mindful of that as we
    proceed along. With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.

        The Chairman. Senator Moody.

        Senator Moody. Thank you, Chairman Cassidy. And thank you
    to our witnesses for taking time to be here, away from your
    families and jobs. This is an important hearing. From our
    earliest beginnings as a Nation, access to education was seen
    as a fundamental bedrock for the sustainment of a republic
    governed by a free people.

        Our founders and subsequent generations knew that if we
    educated our populace, when endowed with virtue and knowledge,
    that was incredibly important to continue the fierce protection
    of our rights and our liberties and ensure the strength of this
    country from one generation to the next.

        In time, it led to more Americans having access to
    education, to pursue college, improve not only their lives but
    the lives of their children. And as a result, our Nation, our
    economy, the prestige of our institutions of higher education
    grew too. However, in recent times, we have seen our
    institutions move away from or even fail in the original basic
    mission.

        Students are graduating with higher amounts of debt, with
    degrees that are sometimes not even useful. In some cases, they
    even have a disdain for the very principles and ideals needed
    to continue this great experiment in self-government. Further,
    across the country, colleges and universities in many instances
    have failed in their duty to protect students from harm, and to
    foster intellectual debate, and growth of availability of
    ideas.

        Instead, they have, as we have seen play out in the media
    time and time again, they have allowed protests to erupt in
    violence, buildings to be overrun, all while our tuition across
    the Nation continues to rise.

        In Florida, we have shown that this does not have to be the
    case. In fact, we undertook very aggressive efforts to ensure
    that our students were protected. And at the same time, we have
    made sure that we are demanding higher education funding is
    tied to performance, guaranteeing accountability and outcome
    improvement.

        I would like to brag on our own FIU that received an A from
    the Anti-Defamation League in combating Antisemitism, as our
    state continues to make strides to ensure our students are not
    only equipped for success in the workforce, but also equipped
    to live full civic lives in this country.

        In innovation, my alma mater, the University of Florida--
    the champions of the basketball world are coming to Washington
    today. Go Gators. They are helping to lead this Nation in AI
    development. And finally, our colleges and universities,
    whether it is the University at Central Florida, the University
    in North Florida, or Florida Tech, they are cooperating with
    local employers and partnerships to ensure their curriculum
    evolves with workforce needs, leading to more successful
    outcomes for students.

        With that said, I would like to turn to our witnesses for a
    few questions. And I would like to start with Dr. Lindsay. You
    have acknowledged the role of higher education and how it plays
    in the formation of the individual in instilling virtue, along
    with the sense of a civic and societal responsibility grounded
    in faith and community. And I believe these are traits that we
    are sorely missing today.

        However, at the same time, with efforts to bring advanced
    manufacturing back to the U.S., we need to ensure that our
    students are equipped to meet the job requirements, not only
    that are in demand right now today, especially as this
    Administration is really bolstering American businesses and
    bringing those jobs back, but also the demands of the job
    markets of the future.

        How do you view the relationship between the two societal
    needs? Do you believe that they are in tension, or through your
    work and experience, is there a way to meet both the needs
    without sacrificing one or the other?

        Mr. Lindsay. At Taylor, we certainly believe that you can
    instill a sense of civic mindedness, a service over self, and
    at the same time preparing students for the jobs that might be
    out there. I mean, the interesting thing is that two-thirds of
    my freshmen will pursue careers that have not yet been
    invented.

        We need to have a degree of intellectual agility. The
    liberal arts idea that Senator Kim was mentioning is what
    actually prepares them for a dynamic workplace environment. At
    Taylor, we have certainly found that our students can marry a
    commitment of civic-mindedness and developing virtue, and at
    the same time getting the intellectual and professional
    development that will serve them well, not just for the first
    job they take, but for the rest of their lives.

        Being contributing members to their communities, to their
    professions, and for the wider world.

        Senator Moody. If balance is possible, what are some steps
    that other universities and colleges could take now to meet the
    approach that you are taking but ensure there is balance there?

        Mr. Lindsay. I mentioned how important I think it is for us
    to be really committed to loving our hometowns. And that is a
    simple way in which you can get students involved with both
    volunteering through local nonprofits, but also interning to
    solve problems that the private sector has in your local
    community. It gives students professional experience but also
    deep engagement in the local community.

        Senator Moody. You heard it, Chairman Cassidy. We have to
    learn to love our hometown, including D.C.

        The Chairman. Somehow, I think Dr. Lindsay is a
    sociologist. You know what I am saying? I mean, it is just
    coming through, man. Just coming through. When the major
    general makes these guys do pushups behind him, we will have
    him declared.

        Senator Hickenlooper.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all
    of you for your work on behalf of the future generations of
    this country. I want to ask a couple different questions. And
    maybe I will go down the list at the--one time, or at various
    times, there has been talk of a Web site that would actually
    allow prospective students to see at any university, or as best
    estimated it could be--and there will be a large battle of
    this--what kind of earnings they could achieve based on what
    they studied.

        These are averages, and I think there would have to be
    qualifications on that. So I want to ask each of you just to
    very briefly, kind of give a thumbs up or what is a real
    concern about that. I recognize the limitations.

        Then tied into that, there has also from time to time been
    efforts to allow students, future loans, to be able to declare
    bankruptcy. What would happen if you took away that right that
    lenders are looking for to make sure they can get paid back.
    And obviously, you would probably decrease access. I recognize
    that.

        But I postulate those two questions. What about the Web
    site that, to the best of ability, tries to give prospective
    students a vision of what they can earn in the future? Why
    don't you start down at the end with you, Mr. Gillen.

        Mr. Gillen. Yes. So I think that is a great idea. We do
    have an early version of this. It is the College Scorecard Web
    site. You can look up by college and major what the earnings of
    graduates are. So there is some limitations there, because not
    everybody graduates. But I think that is a great start.

        We can build on it. I think its borderline criminal that we
    don't also tell them, Okay, what jobs do they get? Like, do the
    veterinarians, graduates, do they work as vets, or are they
    working somewhere else? Not that is necessarily bad, but
    definitely a great idea. And then in terms of the second----

        Senator Hickenlooper. Quickly, quickly, quickly because I
    got----

        Mr. Gillen. Okay.

        Senator Hickenlooper. That's Okay. What did you----

        Mr. Gillen. Oh, so the second was about loans?

        Senator Hickenlooper. No, no, the second one is could they
    declare bankruptcy--on loans, yes.

        Mr. Gillen. On loans? That is a great question. So, I would
    argue no for now, but I would put a cap on it. So I would
    basically say you can't declare bankruptcy the first few years
    after graduation, because nobody has any assets, but after a
    few years open it up.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Dr. Lindsay.

        Mr. Lindsay. I changed my major four times in college, and
    I think most people do. Oftentimes, you choose a major not just
    because you are interested in the field, but you choose it
    because you love the faculty.

        I am not a huge fan of saying that what you major in
    necessarily is the predictor of what your life's success will
    be or the earnings that you will have in that. I did a study of
    550 senior leaders, and I found 73 percent of them actually
    majored in a liberal arts field, even though most of them were
    working in business later.

        The major is not directly the predictor of what your long-
    term success is. But I think it is important for us to be more
    transparent of the outcomes that our students are getting. And
    that is what I think you are trying to get at.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Right. And certainly, if you are
    switching majors, it wouldn't be bad to have that Web site to
    see, all right, even though I really liked this faculty, what
    is my future like? Dr. Brown.

        Mr. Brown. Yes, Senator. Absolutely, I believe we should
    have to show students what the average earnings are in that
    region for the degree that they choose. I think that is a big
    deal. It is not just for that.

        There may be some majors--and I will use teaching as an
    example, where we have people who want to be teachers, but we
    all know full well those teachers will not necessarily earn the
    same thing as compared to others.

        In terms of your second question on bankruptcy, I think
    there are catastrophic things that happen in the lives of
    everyone. And so, student loans, like any other kind of debt
    should be eligible for bankruptcy.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Interesting.

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. Career and labor market outcomes are
    critical. We infused those into our first advising session with
    our community college students. A national model would be
    exceptional.

        It just needs to be reflective of the community and what is
    happening in the economy in that local community. I think it
    also needs to reflect back to the programs themselves, where
    they know what their student outcomes are and can adjust their
    curriculum to be responsive to it.

        Senator Hickenlooper. Then, bankruptcy?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. I am going to leave that to the policy
    experts on bankruptcy.

        [Laughter.]

        Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Pierce.

        Mr. Pierce. Well then I will take my cue, and I will start
    with bankruptcy and say restoring people's rights to bankruptcy
    is vital. We have had a decades long experiment denying people
    bankruptcy rights and it has resulted in people staying in debt
    for decades into retirement.

        The Government is required to chase people down and take
    their social security checks. Having an exhaust valve in the
    student loan system makes people get a fresh start and live
    whole economic lives.

        I would also note, just building on what I think I agree
    with what everybody else about the value of data and shopping
    and transparency. The Trump administration has fired the
    statisticians responsible for managing the College Scorecard.
    We are flying blind now.

        Senator Hickenlooper. That is very sobering. Well, I am out
    of time, but I am not out of questions. I will maybe come back
    for a second round later, or I will submit them in writing, but
    I appreciate your work.

        For the record, I switched majors three times. I got a
    degree, an undergraduate degree in English and creative
    writing, and I sucked as a writer, so my friends pointed that
    out to me.

        That I ended up going back and getting a master's in
    geology, which is a pretty steep. But having a better
    understanding along the way would have, I think, been of value
    to a lot of students. I yield back to the Chairman.

        The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper, Senator Warren and I
    have the College Transparency Act. You should be a co-sponsor.
    It does exactly that which you were saying we should be doing.

        Senator Hickenlooper. I am.

        The Chairman. Super. Well, thank you.

        [Laughter.]

        Senator Hickenlooper. We younger junior Senators don't
    always get the notice and appreciation that we deserve.

        The Chairman. Let's get Kaine and Blunt Rochester and these
    guys, too.

        [Laughter.]

        The Chairman. Next is Senator Hawley.

        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of
    the witnesses for being here. Dr. Lindsay, I want to start with
    you. You lead a historically Christian college. We have a
    number of faith-based, including explicitly Christian colleges
    and universities in Missouri, which we are very, very proud of.

        In fact, I think you mentioned College of the Ozarks in
    your opening testimony, which is right where I live. And we are
    extremely proud of College of Ozarks, as well as our other
    religious institutions, Christian institutions. Let me just ask
    you about the challenges that Christian colleges and
    universities have faced, particularly in the last 4 years.

        I have heard from our institutions in the State of Missouri
    that under the last Administration, they had major problems
    with accreditation, they had problems with financial aid, they
    had problem getting certified in various programs. We had
    threatening letters sent from the Department of Education to
    numerous, of our, religious institutions.

        We are talking about colleges and universities that have
    been around for 100 years or more in the State of Missouri, our
    Baptist universities, our non-denominational universities. So
    can you just speak to the headwinds that Christian colleges and
    universities have faced, and the importance of preserving this
    distinctive form of education in this country?

        Mr. Lindsay. Yes, thanks very much, Senator Hawley. I think
    one of the key challenges all of us face are the sort of
    demographic challenges. We are in a competitive landscape and
    need to be able to recruit the right kind of students.

        But the particular challenge we face at faith-based schools
    is not everybody understands our commitments and understanding,
    and they make assumptions about what kind of students we have
    or what kind of campus cultures we build. But I find that when
    people actually come to our campuses, they actually fall in
    love with the students. They see that this is a place that
    really is trying to help students to thrive and to do well.

        You are right, that the regulatory environment can be
    challenging, and that there are certain actors in the political
    landscape that can make it more challenging. I am grateful for
    progress that we have been able to make in recent years, which
    has made it easier than it was, say, 10 years ago.

        But it is a real particular issue, and I think all faith-
    based institutions have to do a better job of making the case
    of the difference that they make in their local community. I
    think as people begin to see that we are not enclaves, we are
    actually trying to serve and bless our local communities, that
    is the key of making a difference.

        Senator Hawley. Let me ask you about this piece of
    legislation that I am proud to co-sponsor called the Equal
    Campus Access Act, which ensures that religious student
    organizations can operate in accordance with their faith-based
    principles and it would prohibit funding for public
    institutions of higher education if they deny rights or
    benefits or privileges to faith-based student organizations.

        Now, obviously you are a faith-based institution, but
    wouldn't you agree as a person of faith and as someone who
    educates people of faith, many of whom will go out and probably
    teach in public universities, that it is important that if you
    are a person of faith, whether you are leading a university,
    whether you are teaching in a public university, that you are
    accorded the same rights and privileges as everybody else?
    There is no discrimination on the basis of faith. It is a
    bedrock principle. Wouldn't you agree with that?

        Mr. Lindsay. Well, certainly we recognize public
    institutions have a particular obligation to uphold the
    Constitutional right for freedom of speech and a recognition of
    clear conscience, free conscience.

        It seems antithetical to the very premise of what we are
    trying to inculcate in our students at public institutions if
    the students are not allowed the opportunity to organize around
    their religious convictions and to be able to have a chance to
    express those.

        It has had a chilling effect on many campuses as
    overzealous administrators have said that they are going to try
    and shut down some of the activities of faith-based groups. But
    I think that there is a real hopeful opportunity, and certainly
    I support the expression of those Constitutional rights at
    public and private institutions.

        Senator Hawley. Very good. And I just want to come back to
    the first point that I made. I think it is absolutely vital
    that we do everything we can to protect Christian colleges and
    universities, and their rights to exist and educate students on
    an equal plane with every other form of university.

        The truth is in the last 4 years, we saw a constant effort
    to undermine, constant effort to undermine, the mission of
    Christian colleges and universities by the Biden
    administration. And I am glad that the Trump administration has
    reversed course, but the Congress needs to do more in making
    sure that we inscribe into law the equal rights of Christian
    colleges and universities so that no one is discriminated
    against on the basis of faith.

        Now, you have said several times, Dr. Lindsay, you have
    talked about loving your neighbor. I want to switch gears just
    a little bit and think about the crisis of Antisemitism that is
    currently afflicting many universities, and frankly many parts
    of this country. And what makes me think about this is I was
    having a conversation just the other day with a dear rabbi
    friend of mine who said to me something interesting, caught my
    attention.

        He made a reference to the book of Ruth in the Bible, and I
    happened to catch it. And so he said part of the challenge we
    face now is that so few people, so few students in particular
    are taught any kind of biblical history. They are certainly not
    taught the history of Israel.

        They don't understand the spiritual foundations that link
    the people of Israel historically with the United States of
    America, our shared moral principles. Here is my question to
    you.

        Do you think that Christian colleges and universities have
    a special role to play now in rooting out this terror of
    Antisemitism, this scourge of Antisemitism by recalling us to
    those things that we believe together, to our common moral
    principles, and also to those foundational commitments like
    love of neighbor that you have been talking about?

        Mr. Lindsay. A couple years ago, I had a chance to visit
    our honor students who were studying at Jerusalem University
    College. It is one of our partner institutions, literally built
    within the wall around Jerusalem.

        Getting a chance to see up close the Holy Land and to see
    the impact it was having on the lives of our students I think
    really did change their understanding of the experience of
    Jewish people around the world.

        Part of what we want to try and do is to help our students
    to actually engage a much wider world, for them to understand
    friends and neighbors from a wide variety of backgrounds.

        I think as you get to that, you move beyond just sort of a
    mediocre, small level kind of commitment of inclusion, to
    actually pursuing an ethic of love and care.

        Senator Hawley. Let me just, in my remaining seconds, put a
    little finer point on this. Wouldn't you agree, don't you think
    that Christians in particular have a particular obligation to
    stand up and speak against Antisemitism and hatred of Jewish
    people? That is a particular obligation--I say this as a
    believer myself.

        That we cannot shirk or look aside from, but we have a
    particular obligation as people of the books, people of Bible,
    to stand in solidarity and to say, we are against hate always,
    but we have a particular obligation to stand up and speak
    against Antisemitism. Don't you think that is right?

        Mr. Lindsay. Absolutely.

        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        The Chairman. Now, Senator Kaine.

        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
    witnesses. A personal story, a worry, and then a question. So
    personal story. I just, in hearing my colleague, Senator
    Marshall, talk about how community college was really important
    to his educational path, getting a good education and not going
    into too much debt. For me, it was dual enrollment.

        Being able to go through the University of Missouri, which
    was at the time relatively low cost public institution in 3
    years rather than four, was a really big deal for my family at
    that moment. And so, there is no one-size-fits-all strategy
    around affordability. For some, it might be community college.

        For some it is dual enrollment. For some it is Pell Grants.
    For some at Stafford loans. It is just that we have to equip
    students and families much earlier. You have the capacity to
    get a great education. There is a lot of different ways to do
    it.

        But so often, parents and kids are getting into the college
    search process without really knowing the breadth of avenues
    they can use to achieve a high quality education at a cost that
    doesn't break the bank. So that is the story. The worry, my
    colleagues have shared worries about higher-ed whether it is
    Antisemitism or other things. I will tell you what my worry is.

        My biggest worry right now is if I look at the dismantling
    of the Department of Education, dramatic cuts in research
    funding going on in budgets that are being bandied about, a
    dramatic cut in funding to libraries, museums, and cultural
    institutions, elimination of funding to public broadcasting.

        Even outside the education space, directives to certain
    agencies like the National Weather Service and NOAA that have a
    lot of public information that they have been sharing with the
    public, like, hey, you shouldn't share it with the pubic, you
    should sell it. I am a little bit worried that there is sort of
    a privatization of knowledge thing going on, and I am really,
    really worried about that.

        That knowledge could be available for those who can afford
    it, but not for those can't. That worries me a lot. There is a
    famous phrase of Jefferson that is sort of paraphrased in the
    Virginia Constitution that says, progress in Government and all
    else depends upon the broadest possible diffusion of knowledge
    among the general population.

        That was part of a legislative bill that Jefferson proposed
    in 1779 for Virginia public school system that wasn't adopted.
    But the title and the philosophy was the way to preserve
    Government, and progress is to take knowledge and get it out in
    people's hands and diffuse it broadly among the public.

        That will be a counter to tyranny. That will be an
    accelerator of progress. And I worry that the combination of
    budget cuts and privatization of this and that is jeopardizing
    that. And so, that is the worry I have. Here is my question.

        Dr. Lowery-Hart, I have been proposing during the 10 years
    of now three Presidents, President Obama, President Trump,
    President Biden, President Trump, with vast bipartisan support,
    the notion that Pell Grant should not be confined purely to
    traditional college curriculum where there is a 15-week long
    semester-like course, but that Pell Grant should be made
    available in a flexible way for high quality, got to define
    that, career and technical education.

        I have advocated that as the son of an iron worker who ran
    a vocational school in Honduras as a missionary teaching kids
    welding and carpentry, and I have also been advocating it as we
    have been doing manufacturing bills, and infrastructure bills.

        Who is going to make it? Who is going to build it? And yet,
    for 10 years, since I first introduced this with Rob Portman,
    and now I have introduced it with a succession of others,
    recently with Senators Marshall and Collins, and Senator Tina
    Smith, we get close. We kind of fall short. We get it through a
    committee. Falls through on the House. Happens on the House
    side, not on the Senate side.

        Again, and again, and again, we have fallen short on this.
    And I have kind of come to the conclusion that in addition to
    maybe I am not as persuasive as I should be, so I have to own
    some of it, there are two other reasons. No. 1, there is kind
    of a snobbishness about college in this place. That college is
    good and career and technical education is not so good. And I
    am all for college.

        A proud University of Missouri grad, proud Harvard Law
    School grad, man, I am for college. But I am also, offer high
    quality career and technical education. And I don't think we
    should have policies like Pell Grant that advantage one and
    ignore the other. I am happy to say that the Chairman of the
    Committee has been a co-sponsor in the past of this bill, the
    Jobs Act.

        Would it help your students, would it help educate our
    population, Dr. Lowery-Hart, if we allowed flexibility and
    allowed Pell Grants to be used by students who are seeking high
    quality career and technological training?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. Yes, profoundly. We have talked about my
    typical student is named Ashley. And she is a 27 year old
    single mother, raising a kid, working two part-time jobs.

        She needs that additional support to get a level one
    certificate that may be 15 hours, may take her 6 months to do,
    but there is a family sustaining wage waiting for her on the
    other side of it that would change the path for her entire
    family and generations that follow. And I would just say, she
    deserves our advocacy.

        She deserves to be seen and cared for in the same level
    that my colleagues' students deserve. But she is often
    misunderstood and ignored.

        Senator Kaine. I am over my time, but Mr. Chair, as I yield
    back, I said there were three reasons I think this hasn't
    proceeded.

        Maybe I am not as persuasive as I should be. I think there
    is a snobbishness about college that we ought to get over. And
    the third thing is, we don't mark up a lot of legislation. And
    I really hope that we can start marking up legislation,
    particularly legislation like the Jobs Act, where there is such
    bipartisan support.

        Senator Kaine. I want to mark up legislation, so I look
    forward to that.

        Senator Kaine. Good. Good.

        The Chairman. Senator Banks.

        Senator Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lindsay, in
    your opening remarks and your written statement, you talk about
    moral rot. And I wonder if you can just tell us again, what do
    you mean by that?

        Mr. Lindsay. I think it is the erosion of basic human
    values that we have seen become sort of the standard and norm
    in a lot of higher education, which is entirely antithetical to
    the very purpose of what education is designed to do.

        Senator Banks. Where does it come from though? Why do we
    see it fostered so heavily on college campuses in America?

        Mr. Lindsay. Well, I think it is accretion because we are
    humans that make lots of mistakes and we need to have
    guardrails that keep us from our worst sensibilities. So part
    of what we seek to try and do is to put ourselves in
    communities that can encourage us to pursue a virtuous life.

        Senator Banks. What motivates it on a college campus?

        Mr. Lindsay. I think that probably the important dimension
    that we want to try and do is create an academic community, an
    environment where we uphold values that we agree to. There has
    to be clarity. Institutions have to be able to say, this is
    what we stand for and this is who we are.

        A lot of higher education hasn't always been doing that.
    And we realize we may not be the right place for every student,
    so we want to try and recruit the right kind of students. And
    then we want to create an ecosystem where those kind of virtues
    can thrive and flourish.

        Senator Banks. I would assume that all of you here, every
    college president in America would agree that their overall
    mission is to prepare students for careers and make them good
    citizens. Prepare them to be better citizens of this great
    country. But why do so many colleges stray from that? I mean,
    what motivates it?

        Mr. Lindsay. I think that probably the larger purposes that
    we are seeing, the noble cause of higher education, oftentimes
    it gets eroded when we get involved in the nitty-gritty of
    regulatory environment and trying to respond to the economic
    challenges we face.

        All three of us would say, we are working hard to try and
    make our institutions as affordable as possible, and it is hard
    work every single day. But it is those larger aims, those
    higher ideals that draw my colleagues and me to try and do
    everything we can to be able to serve our students more
    effectively. It is part of what gets me up in the morning.

        Senator Banks. To me, it almost feels like a political
    movement. And we see it manifests itself in things like DEI.
    For example--and I wonder, you represent a very well-respected,
    independent institution in my state, but who has rejected this
    political DEI movement.

        But why have so many colleges in America embraced it? Is it
    donor-driven? Is it pushed on you by institutions in the
    Federal Government? Is it tied to Federal funding? I mean, what
    would motivate a DEI movement on college campuses, which seems
    antithetical to that mission that you just described?

        Mr. Lindsay. I can't really speak for what happens at other
    campuses, but I will say, we love our diverse and global
    students, and that has been a part of who we are. Interesting
    story is that our very first international student was a guy
    named Sammy Morris. He was a Liberian prince who had to flee
    Liberia when there was a coup.

        He turned to an American couple who he knew to say, is
    there a place where I could go? They happened to be Taylor
    graduates who were doing missions work trying to help the
    people of Liberia.

        They wrote to the president of Taylor and said, would you
    consider admitting this student? He was our first student of
    color. He was our first international student. But he became an
    exemplar for the rest of our campus. Sammy Morris's spirit sort
    of lives on our institution, and it sort of informs how we are
    trying to build the kind of community where all God's people
    are welcome at Taylor.

        We recognize that we are there to be able to serve and
    bless. So Sammy Morris, he is a prince. He comes to Taylor. We
    didn't actually have a room for him to stay in. He said, give
    me the room that nobody wants to live in. That is where I want
    to stay. That kind of spirit of serving others above yourself
    was what he sort of held up as an exemplar, and it has become
    part of the spirit of our campus ever since.

        Senator Banks. I love that. I grew up in a trailer park in
    a small town in Indiana, son of a factory worker, and I worked
    hard just to get into college. And what I appreciate about
    Taylor University is you have a student--I hope didn't get
    accepted because he was a prince, or because he was a foreign
    student, or because he was a minority student.

        I hope that he was accepted because of your merit-based
    approach to accepting students. So I wonder, can you talk about
    that, Taylor embracing more of a merit-based approach than the
    DEI or the political approach to admissions?

        Mr. Lindsay. I think it is super important that you find
    mission appropriate students. And for us that means they have
    to be academically strong. Our average high school GPA of the
    freshman class is 3.89.

        We are really proud of the academic standards that we
    uphold at the university. And it helps us to realize, we might
    not be the right place for every student, but for those who
    want to be at Taylor, we want to find a place for them.

        Senator Banks. When we talk about preparing students for
    their career, to be good citizens, I think that is really
    important, to reject the political approach and to accept
    students based on merit and give them that opportunity. And I
    think Taylor does that very well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Banks.

        Senator Blunt Rochester.

        Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to
    Ranking Member Sanders. And I, Mr. Chairman, will be looking at
    your transparency bill. I also want to acknowledge that in the
    House, I had the opportunity to lead on the short term Pell
    bill, and I am hopeful that the Jobs Act will become the law of
    the land. And I want to thank our witnesses for being here as
    well.

        Thank you, Dr. Lindsay, especially for the comments that
    you just made about all of us being welcoming, and all of
    really uplifting each other. I think it is a comment that needs
    to be heard and spread far and wide. We all know that college
    isn't for everyone, nor is it necessary for everyone, but every
    student should have the opportunity to pursue higher education.

        Not only as the former Secretary of Labor of Delaware who
    is focused on jobs of today and of the future, but also as a
    mom of two children who graduated from Delaware public schools
    and two HBCUs as well, I know a college degree can be
    incredibly valuable. Unfortunately, it appears that the
    Administration is proposing stripping away some of the existing
    supports for students.

        Specifically, I am incredibly disappointed that the
    President's budget proposes eliminating TRIO programs. TRIO
    programs provide support to low income, first generation
    students, students with disabilities, and veterans, helping
    them not only get in the door, but to succeed in college and in
    the workplace.

        These are programs with bipartisan support that help
    students create brighter futures for themselves through higher
    education, and it also makes us competitive globally. So far,
    more than 6 million students have graduated from college with
    TRIO's help. Dr. Lowery-Hart, can you tell me how many students
    would lose access to support if TRIO was eliminated?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. TRIO has almost 900,000 students currently
    enrolled in the support programs that TRIO offers.

        Senator Blunt Rochester. Based on your experiences, what
    impact do TRIO programs have on students? Do you think
    eliminating TRIO would improve our higher education system?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. It certainly wouldn't improve it at all.
    In fact, you have a demonstrative impact of TRIO programs, even
    in our own TRIO programs at Austin Community College that
    reflect the data nationally.

        83 percent of the students in our local area that are
    upward bound students enroll in a post-secondary entity. 47
    percent of SSS students get a bachelor's degree compared to
    their peers that didn't have the same kinds of supports.

        It is--I am looking at data--47 percent of TRIO students
    are more likely to finish a 2-year degree and transfer to a
    bachelor's degree than students that have the demographic
    background but don't have some support that comes in the form
    of financial literacy, mentoring, academic skill building,
    career skill building.

        The very things that we have spent our time on this panel
    talking about, TRIO has already done historically and done
    well.

        Senator Blunt Rochester. In the budget, the Administration
    refers to TRIO as a relic of the past. I disagree. I think this
    was the 60th anniversary of TRIO this year. I think it was
    because we are close in age.

        In fact, I think--it is true. In fact, I just signed on to
    Chairman Cassidy and Senator Warnock's bipartisan funding
    request for TRIO. And to me, TRIO is not a nice thing to do. It
    is not just about it being a nice thing to do. This year alone,
    all high school seniors in Delaware, Delaware Technical
    Community College's TRIO programs, will graduate.

        Again, that is staggering. And more than 95 percent of them
    will be attending college. Dr. Lowery-Hart, do you think TRIO
    programs are a relic, or are they relevant?

        Mr. Lowery-Hart. They are relevant.

        Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you for that answer. If we
    want a strong economy, we must invest in programs like TRIO
    that help real people access education and the tools they need
    to succeed.

        I hope my colleagues see that these budget cuts would be
    harmful, not helpful, and that this program is not a relic, but
    is relevant to today. I yield back.

        The Chairman. Senator Alsobrooks.

        Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I
    would like to just begin my comments also by saying thank you
    as well to Dr. Lindsay. Your words were so beautiful. And it
    reminds me of a scripture that says, by this they will know
    that you are my disciples, if we love one another.

        I so appreciate your courageous comments pointing out today
    that we have an obligation to love each other, whether we are
    from here or any place else in the world. God commands us to
    lead with love.

        Thank you so much for that. I am disturbed and just so sad
    really at the climate that has been created by this
    Administration which pits people against each other. Those who
    have had the opportunity to go to college and those who have
    not.

        I am the daughter of two parents who did not have the
    opportunity to attend college, a mother who was a receptionist,
    and a father who worked so hard selling cars and newspapers in
    order that I might be educated.

        I have to tell you, nobody is prouder. My father is the
    single most intelligent person I have ever met, didn't have the
    chance to go to college, and I am so proud of him, and he is so
    proud of me. But it was both. His work as a car salesman
    enabled me to become a United States Senator.

        I think it is important as we think through what higher
    education looks like, that we remember that. That it takes
    both. That those who have opportunities, we give them to them,
    and then career in technical education and other forms of
    making it to the middle class are important.

        I want to just ask two quick questions. I know the time
    goes by quickly. And I want to thank all of the witnesses for
    being here today. Dr. Brown, I am glad that you are here so
    that we can hear the perspective of our HBCUs. And Maryland is
    proud to host four HBCUs in our state.

        In fact, I am looking forward to being the commencement
    speaker at Bowie State University this Friday. I am also the
    mother of a proud daughter who is attending Spelman College.
    And so, I am looking forward to working with colleges across
    the aisle to preserve access to this critical funding.

        That being said, this Administration took some concerning
    actions earlier this year briefly suspending the 1890 National
    Scholars Program, which funds students' education in
    agriculture at HBCUs. So I just wonder if quickly you can speak
    to the importance of preserving funding streams for our HBCU's.

        Mr. Brown. Yes, Senator. Thank you for that question. And
    it is vitally important. And I will start first with the 1890
    program, which is--Tuskegee is a recipient of the 1890 program.
    It not only serves the students there, but it serves the
    economy around that area, 200-mile radius.

        It is where we teach farmers, as an example, how to farm
    using solar energy and to do so year-round. But we do this with
    students who come to this by virtue of education, not by virtue
    of where they started in their life.

        We have students, for example, who had never been on farms
    before. They grew up in Detroit. They got immersed in that, if
    you will, and decided to do that service. The 1890 program
    provides them scholarships in order to go to school, and then
    it provides them internships in programs like those here in
    Washington that allows them to become practitioners there.

        The elimination of that program would not only hurt those
    students individually, it would also hurt all of the small
    farmers in programs within a 200 mile radius, in our case, of
    Alabama that would do that. Another instance would be our first
    scientist program, which funds research on cancer, specifically
    ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, and other cancers that are
    specifically related to genes and the study of genes.

        That program, which is a part of a grant that has been
    canceled, causes us great concern. We partner with the
    University of Alabama, Birmingham in that research. Important
    for us to do it in the Black belt of the south because that is
    where the disease happens to have the highest morbidity rates
    and other issues that affect not just those in that area, but
    across the country.

        Those funding streams are critically important, but not
    only to the student, they are important to the national
    interest when it comes to fighting problematic diseases and
    also the economy, where we make a big difference by virtue of
    those programs.

        Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much. And I will go
    quickly. I know this subject has been raised, Mr. Pierce. Can I
    just ask you quickly about Pell Grants, how important they are
    to so many students. And just ask, what message do you think it
    sends to hardworking students when the Federal Government walks
    back its investment in Pell Grant funding?

        Mr. Pierce. Thank you, Senator. Pell grants are absolutely
    vital for students from lower income communities to be able to
    go to college and achieve a college degree and participate in
    the economy.

        I think the message is loud and clear that if we are going
    to cut back on Pell, we are not serious about making sure that
    college is open to everybody. We run the risk of America's
    colleges becoming finishing schools for millionaires and
    billionaires kids instead of being the engine of opportunity
    that has driven our economy for a century.

        Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr.
    Chair.

        The Chairman. Thank you. I want to thank all of our
    witnesses. I noticed that Republicans asked questions of
    Democratic witnesses, and Democrats asked questions of
    Republican witnesses. And that shows that there was a broad
    interest in what everybody had to say as opposed to just merely
    kind of repeating partisan talking points.

        I thank you all. I will announce for my colleagues that
    questions for the records are due on June 4th at 5.00 p.m. I
    again thank you all, and this closes the hearing.

        [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                [all]