The the subcommittee on higher education workforce development will come to order. I note the quorum is present and without objections the chair is authorized to call recess at any time. Today we acknowledge a simple fact. College has gotten too expensive. Since
1970, college tuitions has increased five-fold, far out outpacing the race of of inflation. Meanwhile, colleges have increased their administrative costs, spending more on non-instructional personal, athletics, and non-academic programs that are are not at the core of
institution's educational mission. Recent college enrollment and surveys and federal data showed a long-running trend is continuing. Colleges are on track to spend more per student on administrative costs than on teaching. It's no surprise then that Americans
have begun to question the value of post-secary education. Congressional Republicans heard this concerns reported responded by passing the working families tax cut which includes reforms to lower the cost of college. The working families c tax cut
simplifies student loan repayment plans from over 50 options down to just two. a fixed mortgage style uh mortgage style plan and a repayment assistant plan provides targeted relief for borrowers in need. The law will also hold schools
accountable for student outcomes with do no harm measure uh of post-graduate earnings ensuring that degree programs improve students financial pro prospects if they are continued to receive uh taxpayer funding. It also placed a
reasonable caps on federal loans for graduate and professional students, ending the days of unlimited borrowing that allowed college tuitions to skyrocket. Unfortunately, graduate student loan debt has become a significant driver in the overall student debt. I'm proud this committee
is has taken meaningful action to address the college affordable crisis, but there's more to do. There's still an opportunity for accredit accreditation reform in line with the Department of Education's recent announcement to negotiate rulemaking on this topic. States also
have a role to play. Today, we'll hear about efforts in Utah and Florida to reduce administrative costs, implement performance-based funding uh systems, reform faculty tenure and workforce policies, and refocus accreditation on
student outcomes. I'm confident that restoring market incentives to higher educ higher education will result in a better pricing for students. Every student should feel empowered to pursue an education that fits their goal and know the degree they choose is going to be worth the cost. With that, I yield to
the ranking member. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Uh at this committee's first higher education and workforce hearing of the year, I'm glad we're starting by focusing on what is top of mind for Americans across this country, rising
costs. And let me start with the facts. A college degree remains the shest path to the American dream. It's still the most reliable engine of economic mobility we have. College graduates earn more, experience lower unemployment rates, and are better positioned to
support their families and contribute to their communities. The basic truth has not changed. What has changed dramatically, though, is the lack of state and federal investment in higher education. And that lack of investment has shifted the cost onto students and
their families. From 1995 to 2025, the average published tuition and fees at colleges and universities have risen sharply, far outpacing wages, inflation, and household income. This is not a perception problem. It's a real problem
for Americans in search of a better life. Families are being asked to pay more for each year for the same credential even as they already stretch already stretched thin trying to survive. We all agree there's a college
affordability crisis in this country. Where we disagree is on the solution. And we also need to be honest about what is and is not driving rising college costs. My Republican colleagues will say that this is about administrative bloat.
But the facts do not support that claim. Federal data show that students still far outnumber staff at colleges and universities, including at highly selective institutions. Faculty make up a significant share of employees. And
many schools appear staff heavy only because they operate hospitals, research centers, and public service enterprises that serve communities far beyond their enrolled students. When those roles are are properly properly accounted for, the
idea that colleges are overrun by administrators simply does not hold up. Rising college costs are not driven by too many adviserss, financial aid counselors, or student support staff. They're driven by decades of public disinvestment that have shifted costs
onto students while basic experiences expenses like housing and food and transportation continue to rise. Cutting staff does not make college more affordable. It makes it harder for students to stay enrolled and finish their degrees. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle increasingly argue that higher education is a luxury that students, particularly low-income and first generation students, simply shouldn't pursue if they can't afford it. Instead, they're told to go learn a trade or to attend lower quality
institutions with poor student outcomes, including for-profit schools with troubling track records. So, let me be clear. The solution to the college affordability crisis, cannot be that quality higher education is reserved only for the wealthy. We cannot accept a
system where opportunity depends on zip code, family income, or or whether your parents went to college. Telling students to lower their aspirations is is not a serious policy response. It's a failure of leadership. And the affordability crisis does not exist in a
vacuum. Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities, including groceries and housing, child care, utilities, and healthcare. These pressures directly affect students ability to enroll, persist, and graduate
even when students arrive on campus. A recent survey found three in five experience food or housing insecurity. So when we factor in access to transportation, child care, technology, and mental and physical health care, the
number of students facing basic needs in security jumps to three and four. Yet instead of addressing these realities, recent policy choices have have made them worse. Republicans continue to make food cuts to food assistance, slash
Medicaid, contribute to rising utility costs, and freeze child care funding, which which all undermine economic security and by extension college access. And and we also need to be honest about what's driving rising
college costs. Republicans today will argue that colleges should lower costs by simply not investing highquality faculty and administrators like career counselors and academic adviserss who help students reach the the finish line.
The spending is is not the root cause of high tuition. In addition to stagnated state and federal investments, unchecked privatization and for-profit colleges have targeted low-income students, often leaving them with high debt and low
value credentials. Students from the lowest income uh are twice as likely to enroll in for-profit colleges and too often they pay the highest prices. And finally, we can't ignore the elephant in the room. Republicans big ugly law,
which makes this crisis worse. Changes to Pell grants, new borrowing limits, and a restructured repayment system narrow the pathways to higher education, particularly for underserved communities. These reforms risk turning
college into an expensive privilege rather than public good. This hearing is about one simple question. Do we believe college should be accessible to everyone willing to work for it or only to those who can afford it? Mr. Chairman, I look
forward to our discussion today. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. >> Thank you. Pursuant to committee rules 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 p.m., 14
days after this hearing. And without objections, the hearing record will be remain open 14 days to allow such statements and other material noted during this hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I will now uh turn to introduce our four distinguished witnesses. Our first
witness is Dr. Beth Acres, a senior fellow at the American Institute Enterprise Institute from Washington DC. Second witness is a fellow UNON uh Mr. Jeffrey Lan Lanwood, the commissioner of the Utah system of higher education from
Salt Lake City, Utah. My third witness is Dr. Julie Mar Margetta Morgan, um, president of the Century Foundation from New York City. Thank you. And the fourth witness is Mr. Raymond Rodriguez, the chancellor of the state universal system
of Florida from Tallahass, Florida. I thank the witness for being here today and look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to room committee rules, I would ask that each of you limit your oral presentation to a three-minute summary of your written statement. As committee members have many questions for you, the clock will count down from
3 minutes. However, pursuant to community rule 8 and committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony till you reach the five minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of your responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. I first want to recognize
Dr. acres uh for your testimony. >> Thank you and good morning uh Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Higher education and workforce policy affect nearly every American family, and
getting this policy right matters enormously for students and taxpayers alike. I'm an economist who studies how federal higher education policy affects students and institutions. My remarks today will focus on two points. Why reform has been necessary and what
Congress should do next. Higher education still pays off on average, but outcomes vary enormously across programs. Many programs deliver strong economic mobility while others leave students with debt and little improvement in earnings.
For too long, federal policies subsidized enrollment without paying enough attention to results. Students often enroll without clear information about costs and outcomes, and taxpayers carry growing risk when programs consistently fail to deliver value. The
recent reconciliation legislation marked an important shift by tying access to federal loans more closely to student outcomes. It's hard to overstate how important this innovation was for those of us who've been following this field for a long time. It established a simple
principle. Programs that routinely leave students financially worse off should not continue receiving federal loan dollars. The legislation also introduced new limits on graduate student borrowing. These limits operate as a
consumer protection, helping prevent students from taking on debt that exceeds the economic value of their degree while also restoring some price discipline in graduate education. But the work is not finished. I hope that Congress continues this work to
strengthen accountability by paying greater attention to price. Programs that deliver similar earnings at much lower cost provide better value to students and taxpayers and should be recognized as such by policy. Congress should also continue improving
transparency so students have clear usable information before enrolling and before borrowing. That in includes ensuring students receive standardized, easy to understand financial aid offers and have access to program level information on costs,
completion rates, post-enrollment earnings so they can make informed decisions before taking on debt. The question before Congress is whether federal policy will continue rewarding enrollment alone or increasingly reward results that matter to students and taxpayers.
The le the reconciliation legislation showed meaningful progress in that direction. Building on that progress can help ensure postsecondary education consistently delivers on its promise. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. >> Thank you. I'll now recognize Mr.
Lanward for your testimony. >> Thank you, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I appear before you on behalf of the Utah Board of Higher Education to discuss one of our most urgent priorities in Utah, keeping higher education affordable and accessible
while ensuring it delivers real value to students, taxpayers in the workforce. Higher education remains essential to economic mobility, civil civic life, and national competitiveness. Yet, for too many families, the rising cost of college has created the
perception that higher education is out of reach. Over the past 50 years, tuition fees at public four-year institutions have risen nearly three times faster than inflation. If left unadressed, this trend threatens access, public trust, and long-term workforce
development. The causes of rising costs are complex. They include macroeconomic forces such as increased demand for credentials in a knowledge based economy, rising cost of labor intensive services. They also include institutional pressures, mission creep,
regulatory burden, duplication of programs, expanded student services, and intense competition for enrollment. No single factor explains the problem, and no single solution will fix it. In Utah, we believe affordability requires strong governance, disciplined decision-making,
and a relentless focus on student value. First, we are redesigning our system of higher education to fully capture the benefits of systemness. A recent performance audit confirmed that institutions too often act independently, duplicate programs, and compete rather than collaborate. Our
response is a multi-year system redesign built around regional higher education centers with specialized institutional roles, shared services, and coordinated academic pathways. This approach emphasizes collaboration over competition, reduces duplication,
and expands access without unnecessary cost growth. Second, Utah's implemented some of the most transparent and disciplined tuition and fee policies in the country. Institutions are required to justify every proposed increase through public hearings, clear cost disclosures, and board level scrutiny.
As a result, Utah's public institutions already have among the lowest tuition in the nation, and real tuition levels have declined over the past three years. Third, we're aligning funding with value through strategic reinvestment. Under recent state law, institutions were required to reallocate $60 million
statewide towards highv value workforce aligned programs. Early result results show significant reinvestment in healthcare, engineering, computer science, and technical education while reducing administrative costs and strengthening instruction. Utah's outcomes reflect this approach. We have
the lowest average student loan debt in the nation and one of the lowest rates of students graduating with debt. This is driven by low tuition, strong concurrent enrollment, high value technical pathways, and a culture that emphasizes responsible investment. Finally, federal policy matters.
Financial aid reform, transparent value reporting, accountability for program outcomes, and expanded PEL eligibility for short-term credentials all support affordability when aligned with student return on investment. Affordability is not about lowering quality. It is about delivering
education that is efficient, accountable, and worthy investment. Utah's experience shows that strong governance and clear incentives can bend the cost curve while expanding opportunity. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. >> Thank you. Now like now I'd like to
recognize Dr. Morgan for your testimony. >> Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. The cost of college is simply too high for most families to afford. Tuition and fees for undergraduates this past year
were almost $12,000 for an in-state public college student, 4,000 for a community college student, and more than $43,000 for a private nonprofit. And that's not even including room and board, books, and other expenses. For millions of students, the only option to
afford an education is to take on mountains of debt. Total federal student loan debt stands at nearly $1.7 trillion with the average federal student loan burden just under $40,000. Under the Trump administration's watch, an increasing number of borrowers have
struggled to repay their loans with an astounding one out of every four borrowers currently delinquent on their loan. Unfortunately, the prospect of higher education has become a catch22 for families across the country. Making a safe, secure living too often requires
education after high school. But getting that degree requires taking on enormous debt and financial risk that could leave them worse off. The Century Foundation's own research found that people without a college credential are living in a different, harsher economy. They're twice as likely as their college
educated counterparts to skip meals or medication due to cost, twice as likely to report being late on their bills, and far more likely to turn to debt to cover their expenses. Higher education was expensive before Donald Trump came into office, but actions taken by his
administration and by Congress have made the situation far worse. First and foremost, in the last year, the Trump administration has driven up daily costs from utilities to health care to school supplies. So much so that Americans are forced to make impossible trade-offs
between putting food on the table, keeping their lights on, and getting the medical care that they need and deserve. I know the president has called the issue of affordability a hoax, but for countless families across the country, this pain is real. Congress's decision to gut Medicaid and SNAP to pay for
massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans only deepened that pain, as did its decision to stand by and watch health insurance costs skyrocket. Now, three in 10 Americans are delaying or skipping medical care due to cost. One in three people are skipping meals due
to finances and millions of Americans are behind on their utility bills. Nearly 40% of working-class people are relying on short-term debt like buy now pay later to cover their bills. Second, HR1 has created a huge vulnerability for public higher education that is already
driving up tuition prices in many states. HR1's cuts to Medicaid and SNAP are put immense pressure on state budgets. And as states scramble to fill those gaps, we are already seeing them cut appropriations for public higher education, leading to tuition increases. Several states have slashed higher
education funding or raised prices. And unfortunately, I expect we'll see more in the coming year. Third, Congress and the Trump administration have drastically increased the cost of student loans, both for current and future borrowers. HR1 eliminated incomedriven repayment plans, including
a save plan, replacing them with a skimpier single plan that puts borrowers at higher risk of default. That change alone will cost many borrowers between 2,800 and $4,800 per year. HR1 also placed borrowing limits on certain federal loans, creating new and
lucrative opportunities for the student loan industry. Major private lenders like Sally May, Navian, and SoFi lobbyed for these limits, and they're standing ready to extract profits from students. As SoFi told its investors, their company would be very happy to step in
for the government and would absolutely capture that opportunity. Finally, the Trump administration has opened the door to pred predatory education programs and student loan servicesers by taking the cops off the beat, sidelining the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and eliminating the units at Federal Student
Aid in charge of enforcement. While there are many actions that Congress can take to undo this damage, I urge you to focus on using the big levers that the federal government has to make real change. not incremental tinkering around the edges or clever programs that make good headlines and trade publications,
but no difference in family budgets. We need change that families can actually feel, change that makes life more affordable for all Americans. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. >> Thank you. Uh lastly, I'd like to recognize Mr. Rodriguez for your testimony.
>> Good morning, and thank you. >> Good morning and thank you, Chair Owens. I bring greetings from your hometown of Tallahassee. Also, uh, good morning, Ranking Member Adams and members of the subcommittee. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge my former colleague in the Florida House, uh, Congressman Randy
Fine, who during his time in Tallahassee was always willing to tackle tough issues in education. So, I'm pleased to see you're serving on this committee. In October of 2025, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey. And in that survey, seven out of 10 Americans
responded that they thought higher education was on the wrong track. Eight out of 10 expressed concerns around college affordability. In Florida, our state university system serves 431,000 students over 12 institutions, making it the second
largest in the country. For the last 15 years, we have been on a path of reform, and that path has taught us three lessons. I'd like to share with the subcommittee today. The first lesson is that change is possible. During the Great Recession from 2008 to 2013,
Florida cut its higher education appropriations by 43%. That was nearly twice the national average during that time period of 23%. During that same 5-year period, we raised tuition 86%. Which was the highest in the country and
well above the national average of 39%. 2013, we came out of the Great Recession in Florida. And in Florida, we did something different. We embraced performance-based funding, which is funding based on successful student outcomes. We knew that that would bring
in accountability. And this was our second lesson is that accountability works. Since we've implemented performance-based funding, we have seen significant student success. Our academic progress rate is up to 90%. Our six-year graduation rate is up to 76%.
number one in the country. Our four-year graduation rates up to 60%, number two in the country, and our post-graduation employment rate is up to 74%. The third lesson we learned is that student success can drive affordability.
Each year, we present the results of our 10 performance-based funding metrics to our legislature and to our governor. And our legislature and governor have taken the progress that we've made and they have continued to invest in our system as a result of that. Instate resident undergraduate tuition
in Florida has been frozen since 2013. We now have the lowest resident undergraduation tuition and fees at $6,359, nearly half the national average of 11,950. important for us is that at the end of
spring semester, a student can leave and if they're willing to work full-time during summer, even if it's a minimum wage job, they can earn enough over the summer that before the fall semester begins, they will have earned enough to pay both their fall and spring tuition and fees, making us one of the last
systems that you can work your way through. The result of low tuition and fees is that fewer students need student loans. In our most recent data, 80% of our Florida resident undergraduates were enrolled with no student loans. Accountability, transparency, and
affordability have transformed our system in our pursuit of academic excellence. We continue to reform in other areas as well, such as containing administrative growth, post-tenure review, eliminating indoctrination, and creating transparency tools for
families like my Florida future. In closing, I commend Congress for passing the Working Families Tax Cut Act. For the first time, the federal government has introduced accountability measures around student outcomes. Florida is proof positive that accountability in
higher education works. And I look forward to taking your questions. >> Thank you. Uh, under committee rule 9, we'll now uh ask questions to witnesses under the five-minute rule. I'll recognize myself for five minutes. U first of all, I had a chance to to go
through all your your uh testimonies and I'm very impressed. Thank you so much for taking the time to do that. It's going to add a lot to our conversation and how we move forward. Uh Mr. Acres, uh in your testimony, you mentioned uh in the past rewarded
participation of uh at whatever cost. Going to paraphrase uh we're moving forward. We're going to reward outcomes that matter to the student uh worker and taxpayer. That's a remarkable way of of approaching this. Uh what are your thoughts on the working families tax cut
capping federal students loans from uh for graduate and professional students? >> I think this is a tremendously important move for consumer protection. We've been talking for a decade now about um student borrowers being victims of this system that does not have any underwriting that does not help them
discern whether debt will be affordable for them to take on. the limits put in place reasonable limits to bring in line the amount that people are borrowing with what they can anticipate to see as a return from those degrees. >> Thank you. Um uh Mr. Mr. Lanward um let
me just say coming from Utah and also growing up in Tallahassee keeping up with that there's a culture that we're seeing in both states uh is one of collaboration and more importantly keeping the student first not the institution. So I want to applaud you both uh for making that happen. Um, we
know the uh that uh the confession about um confusion about how much college education costs can can cause students to make poor decisions about their um about their higher education options and to be a major barrier for students considering post-graduate uh education.
How does Utah require institutions of higher education to be transparent about the tuition policies? >> Thank you, chair. in in in Utah, we feel we feel an obligation because we are so highly supported by the state
legislature uh and because of the investment that the state makes. We have an obligation to ensure not only that we're that we're putting downward pressure on tuition, but those who are reaping the benefits of this investment understand the nature of the investment. And so in Utah, we require first of all
all of the institutions to hold public hearings and advertise those hearings with the students on campus in multiple venues to ensure they have an opportunity to come and hear what is the tuition paying for. If there is an increase, what is that increase going to pay for? How is it going to benefit the
students and then take that information and feedback and then make a recommendation to the board of higher education. We take an opportunity to scrutinize all of those disclosures and we also require them to provide us alternative scenarios. In other words, saying instead of raising tuition, uh
what would it look like if we reduce the tuition that you're requesting to this level or what would it look like at zero? Please give us those scenarios and then to push back on those to ensure that they're uncovering every opportunity to find different ways to pay for the needs for these increases. That kind of public disclosure helps
ensure that not only students understand what the tuition is paying for, but also that our institutions understand that they have to justify every increase to ensure that it's going to provide value to those students. Thank you. Uh Mr. Rodriguez, uh Florida is the lowest resident undergraduate tuition and fees
in in the nation. What policies have been key to keeping college affordable without compromising educational quality? The performance-based funding measures have prioritized student success. The student success measures have given our
legislature and our governor the confidence to continue to invest. Each year those metrics are reported and we can demonstrate to the legislature and to the governor the connection between their investment in our higher education and the success of our students and how
that contributes to the overall economy. because our metrics are focused around student success, they understand the academic excellence that our students are receiving that spurs further investment. >> Thank you. I just want to say again, thank you for prioritizing students first in this institution and we're
starting to see that we're a great model for the rest of the country and I'm looking forward to them seeing that. So, that being said, I'm going to now recognize ranking member um for her uh questions, question witnesses. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again to witnesses. Let me turn to Dr. Morgan.
Uh, Dr. Morgan, public colleges remain the most affordable option for students, especially low-income, first generation, and working students, but that affordability has increasingly been preserved by shifting costs onto students rather than sustained a public investment. So, can you explain how
state funding for public colleges has changed over the the last few decades and how those shifts translate directly into higher tuition and fees for students? From a policy perspective, uh why is sustained state and federal investment in public colleges one of the
most effective ways to control cost without sacrificing quality or access? >> Absolutely. So, I'll just start by saying, you know, public colleges and universities are really the backbone of our higher education system. This is where about 70% of um of individuals are
going to school and it's incredibly important to keep them accessible and affordable for all students. Traditionally, state appropriations have been the way that we have done that. So, the the combined mix of appropriations from state government and grant aid from
the federal government have allowed students to attend public colleges at a very affordable rate. However, we've seen over time that when state budgets are squeezed, one of the first things to go is investment in public higher education. And as those state
appropriations shrink, tuition goes up. And that's part partly why I'm particularly concerned about what we've seen in HR1, which is going to put that kind of pressure on state budgets and increased tuition costs for students. >> Thank you, ma'am. The the the millions of borrowers are are struggling with
delinquency and default, not because they were irresponsible, but because the cost of college and the cost of living uh out outpaced the wages. So, what what does the evidence show about how student loan default affects borrowers financial stability, including credit access,
housing, and deploy and unemployment? And looking ahead, what policies are most effective at preventing default before it happens? And what should Congress be doing now to support borrowers who are already distressed? >> Yeah, delinquency on student loans has
incredible negative effects on people's lives. There's both the punitive effects of uh the way that we collect student loans through wage garnishment and other other measures in the federal student loan program. Um and there's also the effect of having a defaulted student loan on people's credit reports which
can of course impact their ability to get credit. But I think people don't always understand that it also impacts their ability to get a job, to get housing. So this can be really crushing for students um and for borrowers. I think, you know, when you think about what the federal government can do here,
as a former employee at the Department of Education, what I saw was that that shift from delinquency to default is really the barrier where we want to focus our attention. If we can keep people in repayment on their student loans, we can keep them uh afloat and we
can keep them out of the the default um kind of bucket where it's incredibly difficult to pull them back out. So, I think this is where income driven repayment plans really um become important. >> Thank you. the the Century Foundation um has has played a critical role in documenting and evaluating the chronic
underfunding of historically black colleges and universities. I look forward to seeing that advocacy continue. I had the opportunity to work closely with Denise Smith during the H.B.CU brain trust last semester. I've taught 40 years on an H.B.CU campus. I went to a public uh university myself.
But based on that work, why have public HB.CU CUS continue to receive unequal treatment by their states even after decades of legal settlements and federal attention and how does that underinvestment show up for students in concrete ways? >> Yeah, I really want to thank you for
your advocacy on this issue. It's an issue that has been incredibly important to the Century Foundation because it's important to people in this country and to creating equitable access not just to higher education but to jobs. Um we know that H.B.CU BCU provide incredible support for black students around the
country and also have experienced unequal funding. And so it's incredibly important that we focus in on um equalizing the funding for those schools so that students can can experience the same outcomes um as their peers. >> So what should college uh Congress
expect from states states and institutions to ensure that HB.CU funding gaps are actually closed not just just acknowledged? How can organizations like yours continue to play a role in in in holding systems accountable for delivering on that promise? >> You know, I think we need to
persistently put the data in front of our our leaders, not only at the federal level, but at the state level to make sure that they can't walk away from these gaps that they've created and that they've allowed to foster over decades. Um, to me, that kind of advocacy is
really important from an organization like Century. Um, and I appreciate the advocacy that we had from from you and others in terms of the impact that that has on >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to uh put in the record the the college investor article administrative
bloat is is is is false. >> Without addition, >> thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I'd now like to recognize the chairman of the full committee. My friend from Michigan, Chairman Walberg. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having a great panel here today and panel. Thank you for being here. It's
it's it's it's great to have a panel that um is an actual um showcase of what happens when you focus on accountability with responsibility for outcome as opposed to just throwing
money at it as we've done for the past number of years with more government loans which has exacerbated the cost of college education because there's no limit. to what the government can give, the private sector will hold
accountable. And so to see states that are focusing on accountability and responsibility for outcome, thank you for having them here and it's good to see your state represented well from
Utah as well as uh from uh from Florida. Um Dr. acres. Uh what do you say to the people who often say um a lot of whining going on out there even before the one big beautiful bill is is in action fully
for how we're dealing with student loan issues. Uh but the people who are concerned that graduate student loan limits will impede college access. Uh graduate student loan limits are critically important to ensure that people are not continuing to take on
amounts of debt that are unaffordable based on what they're likely to earn in the future. Um there's a lot of concern about different programs um whether professional graduate degree programs have eligibility for different loan limits. It's really important to rewind and come back to the point that the
limits on graduate and professional loans altogether. That is the objective is to make sure that people are not able to borrow more than is going to be affordable for them to pay in the future. Um, yes, giving people piles of money with unlimited access to credit will create more access, but the
question is access to what? I think it's critically important that we're ensuring access to high quality programs to programs that can deliver an economic return that's on par with the amount that people are able to borrow. >> Yeah, thank you. I agree. Um, Mr. Lanward, good to good to see you here
today. Miss seeing you in in Utah at in Salt Lake City at the great round table that our chairman had out there, but you were well represented and thank you for that. Um, we've heard concerns that reforms in the working families tax cuts threaten college access, but don't
skyrocketing college costs also make college unattainable for many students? >> Thank you for the question. The answer is yes. Ultimately, in the in the Utah system of higher education and and as prioritized by the state legislature, affordability
is one of the key priorities that we have. It's no secret any study about collegegoing rates and even even college retention, the cost of going to college and staying in college is one of the primary barriers to access and to
completion. And we simply have to recognize that as a system of higher education, we have an obligation to the students who enroll in our institutions to ensure that they are affordable. And so when we look at whatever reforms are coming either from the the federal
government or at a state level, the intent here is that we want students to go and we want them to stay and we want them to graduate and we'd like them to graduate in a way where they actually have a return on that investment, meaning they're going to earn more than what they had to put in. The data shows
that if they can get degrees that have that kind of return, it is so worth the investment that they're making. And so we have to make sure that we're removing all of those barriers to affordability. >> Yeah. and and encourage them for continuing education of the future as they develop beyond the job that they're
in as they start. So, thank you. U Mr. Rodriguez, um boy, it's exciting to hear that a student in Florida, many students at least, can work during the summer and pay for their school bill. Kind of hearkens back to my days of maybe working two, three jobs in the summer,
but still paying for my stu my my my education. How did Florida address administrative bloat while holding institutions of higher education to high standards of operational efficiency? That's a great question. What we've seen over the last four decades is that the
growth of administration has averaged around 3.9% annually. In Florida, we require each university when they submit their legislative budget request, which is what they give the legislators asking for appropriations to include on that
request their number of administrators FTE equivalent and their five-year trend. So, they know when they go to the legislature to ask for funding, that legislature has that top of mind when they're considering that appropriation request. What we have found is over the
last 10 years, our appropriations have grown a total of 2% in administration. I'm sorry, our administration has grown a total of 2% over the last 10 years. >> Wow. Wow. Mr. Chairman, um could I uh without objection enter into the hearing
record a report from the American Enterprise Institute, the Education Council, and the Century Foundation, which recommends, and I quote, reasonable loan limits. That's uh that's exactly what we did in the working families tax cuts >> with no objections.
Okay. Uh like now to recognize my good friend from California, Mr. Makono. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you the witnesses for being here. Uh Chairman Wahlberg, uh you know, the premise of his line of questioning was that private markets will correct bloat
and bring down college costs. Um, with the passage of the Republican budget bill HR1, Republicans laid out their vision for higher education. Clearly, they believe that college costs will be lowered through privatization, deregulation, and competition in the
free market. Dr. Morgan, what do we know about college pricing and student outcomes in the forprofit sector? >> Thank you for the question. So, we know that college pricing in the for-profit sector is meant to maximize profits for
shareholders rather than provide an affordable education for students. And so, what we see in the for-profit sector is high prices, high levels of debt for students and very little spending on instruction. So more often than not,
we're seeing students who are getting a very high price education that provides um very poor outcomes in the labor market and in terms of their their student debt repayment. >> So in this case, does relying on free market compet uh on a free market
competitionbased model effectively lower tuition? >> The these colleges are not competing on price for students, right? They are competing for access to federal aid dollars. they're competing for access to profits >> and there doesn't seem to be any
attention to this particular uh sector uh in HR1 or among your counterparts at the table. >> No, in fact, you know, HR1 has very little attention to the issue of affordability overall and in fact works
in the opposite direction. It's increasing costs on families across the board which is making it harder for them to afford higher education. >> Thank you. Republicans seem to be operating on the theory that an increase in federal financial aid available to students leads to an increase in tuition for all. Dr. Morgan, in which sector of
higher education has this theory show been shown to be true? Public higher education, private higher education, or in the for-profit sector? >> So, the studies that I've reviewed have showed that in the for-profit sector when there's an increase in financial aid, we see a corresponding increase in
tuition prices. And that is I think I believe driven by this profit motive. They are looking to suck in as much federal financial aid as they can. >> So an increase in financial aid has not been demonstrabably been shown that for increases in public higher ed or in
private higher education but mainly in the for-profit sector. >> No, certainly not to the same degree as the for-profit sector. I I think the other thing to remember here is that even if federal financial aid were driving up tuition prices, the idea that simply limiting federal aid would
somehow bring down tuition prices is a fallacy. What we're seeing is the creation of a gap between federal student loans and tuition prices that families are having to fill by turning to the private market for private student loans. So HR1 capped how many how much students could borrow in
federal loans, limited student eligibility for PEL grants, and fully replaced the student loan repayment system with one that is ultimately much more expensive uh for borrowers. Uh changes all which all increasingly pushed American students toward the
private loan market. Dr. Morgan, will the changes made in HR1 safeguard students against defaulting on their loans or exacerbate the risk of default? it is they are certainly going to exacerbate the risk of default. I think in particular the um dialing back on the
income driven repayment plans available to to people to give them a less generous option puts students at risk of default. But also shifting them over to the private market for loans puts many many students at risk of default and it puts them at risk of default on a loan
that is more predatory than what they would have gotten in the federal system. So, my Republican colleagues say that greater privatization in higher education will protect the American taxpayer from subsidizing student loans. But without corresponding protections for student borrowers and accountability
measures, the private markets will have free reign to treat these students like piggy banks. Dr. Morgan, we are accelerating um we are accelerating American students toward towards the brink of a massive default crisis at a breakneck speed. What will a default
crisis ultimately cost the American taxpayer? >> I can't put an exact figure on it, but I just really want to emphasize that this is a the crisis in defaults and even just in delinquencies isn't just an impact on the individual borrower. It's an impact on the economy as a whole. It
inhibits people's job mobility. It inhibits their ability to get housing and it inhibits their ability to consume which is what powers our economy altogether. So, this is really um a crisis that we all need to be paying attention to and that's happening right under our nose even in the federal
student loan program. >> I'm afraid to say that my Republican colleagues want to take a victory lap today, but I I want to warn all Americans that these policies that they have embedded the HR1 are are going to create a a a default crisis that will
leave every American every American footing the bill. I yield back. >> Thank you. I'd like now to recognize my good friend from North Carolina, Miss Harris. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of you on the panel for uh your testimonies here and your written testimonies that I enjoyed uh reading.
Uh Dr. Acres, every year, millions of high school seniors face one of the most significant and difficult decisions of their lives. What comes next after graduation? However, these young adults are all too often led astray when deciding on which college they should
attend, what field of study to pursue, or even whether college is necessary at all to achieve their career goals. So, I want to just ask you up front, in your view, how is today's higher education system failing high school students as
they prepare to make these significant lifealtering decisions? I'd say the primary way in which the system is failing students is that we are not delivering on the promise of opportunity. On average, higher education is delivering opportunity in spades, but there are plenty of programs
out there that are allowed or have been allowed to continue to receive funding through federal programs that are consistently delivering students not into good economic opportunity. So, I would say the variation that we've seen historically um hopefully which will now be stopped by the implementation of the
reconciliation legislation um has been the significant failure for students. >> Well, as you noted in your testimony, while a college degree can and often does pay off for many Americans, those outcomes are are highly programsp specific and for some students, attending college actually leaves them
worse off financially than if they had never enrolled. And you also highlighted what you described as an information gap. I noticed where students enroll without a clear understanding of the true cost of their degree. So, how does this information gap impact students
decisionmaking? And who would you say are disproportionately harmed by these misguided and irresponsible policies? >> In general, I'd say it's their already economically or racially disadvantaged students who are struggling to make the best decisions about college. We've made
it really hard uh for people to make good decisions. The information technically exists. There's a website out there, the collegecorecard.gov. I go there all the time, but American students, especially young high school students or even returning adults, don't know that this is where the information is that they need to make decisions. Secondly, institutions have made it
difficult for students to interpret or potential students to interpret the financial aid officer offers that they give to them um in in a self-serving manner. Uh we need to make it more clear so that people can make in decisions that are in their own best interest. Well, and and I agree. And Congress has
a responsibility to hold colleges and universities accountable, which is why in HR1, Republicans placed reasonable limits on how much students can borrow. I will ask you one more. In your expert opinion, how will these reforms not only help rein in rising college cost, but
also increase accountability in higher education by ensuring institutions prioritize value over volume when offering degree programs? For the first time, uh, this legislation puts in place standards that says to an institution,
if you are not delivering your graduates, your students into better economic circumstances than where you started, we do not want you in the federal lending program. That is a tremendous win both for individual students and for taxpayers. Layer on top of that what I think is a really important protection for graduate
students. We have we've struggled to pin down exactly through research the relationship between the availability of credit in student lending programs and prices. But very recently a set of economists were able to pin down very precisely there has been a tremendous
increase in cost of graduate professional programs because of the eligibility for credit that has been largely unconstrained. And so this is going to for the first time put downward pressure on prices of those programs which really works to serve students better because they get a better deal.
They get those returns at a lower cost and also protects taxpayers from the downward the downside of having to repay these loans. >> I've only got a minute left and uh Mr. Landward and Mr. Rodriguez, I will say I was greatly encouraged by the steps your respective states have taken to ensure
institutions of higher education remain accountable to both students and taxpayers. So, since I only have about 45 seconds left, Mr. Lanward, Utah requires public institutions to submit three-year plans to evaluate your programs and administrative cost. How
has this planning requirement changed decisionmaking at the institutional level? And can you give us any specific examples that uh of how costs have been reduced? >> Thank you. >> Thank you for the question. I'll be brief. We do require now institutions to
provide a three-year what we call a strategic reinvestment plan. And these investment plans uh were developed through a state law that essentially took $60 million out of the state higher education budget, held it, and then had those institutions tell us in the three-year plan where would that money
come from and cuts and where would it go based on criteria like enrollment, completion rates, discipline related professional outcomes, including placement, employment, lensure, wage outcomes, current and future, uh uh industry demand, all of these things showing that this is the type of thing
that ensures a high return on investment. Institutions now are making decisions based on those criteria and can show that we have deinvested in programs that were poor performing or administrative costs that were not fundamental to the mission of the institution and have reinvested that
back into instruction in programs that provide higher value to students. So the investment in higher education didn't go down. It's just smarter. >> Thank you. My time's expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Thank you. Uh my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. chairman. Um, and
thank you to the panel. So, last November, the Department of Education issued, uh, its hit list in terms of occupations that no longer are defined as professions. Uh, which, um, I think anybody who even has casually followed this issue has triggered a backlash uh,
of just biblical proportions. um you know particularly in the health care space where um occupational therapists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurse anesthesists were uh again treated basically uh removed as
a professional uh occupation uh aside from the insult that I think many people in that area felt. I mean the it what it had in real life consequences is it it it put a a lower cap in terms of um uh borrowing and you know again the fantasy
that we hear from some of these witnesses today particularly from the American Enterprise Institute that that's somehow going to introduce market discipline in terms of tuition. I mean, the fact of the matter is is banks know better because they were lobbying for these caps because they understand that
the the the limits are going to force student borrowers uh into the private market. And again, um just more Dr. Morgan, maybe you can talk about that. You mentioned it in your testimony. >> Yes, thank you. So, I I'll start with that that lobbying effort. Um I think
it's important to understand that we saw private lenders place paid advertisements in places like Politico, you know, driving up this idea that the student that student loans were this huge problem and that the thing that we needed to do was to cap them, right? So publicly they're saying we need caps on
student loans. Privately, what they were saying to their investors was we're waiting in the wings. There's a profit opportunity for us here. And I think that those people who you're you're describing who are locked out of professional degree, the limits on professional degrees, so particularly,
you know, nurse practitioners and other people in these advanced healthc care fields who are not doctors, um they're exactly that prime kind of target, right? So for a SFI or for a Sally May, this is the person who they're going to go after. Those those borrowers cannot
expect their tuition to decrease to match the federal loan limit. they're going to end up paying for highcost um private student loans to fill the gap. >> And of course with private loans, I mean there's always an underwriting component in terms of you know trying to qualify uh for a loan whether it's a collateral
requirement or um you know just again a financial position where the the bank you know can certify that it's a low-risk uh loan. banks again have sort of recognized that this is going to be an issue uh for a lot of students because they're now basically talking about coming to Congress to ask for loan
guarantees which is really just a you know basically a trip it back in time in terms of just sort of the ripoff that was in uh the student loan uh space where banks were getting basically total government guarantees as well as higher interest rates. I mean that's really
sort of where they're trying to push this system isn't that correct? >> Yeah, exactly. We've seen this play before, right, from the banks um where they get people hooked on the student loans and then they come in and they say, you know, if we can't offer the loans, people won't have access to
college. Why don't you you help us out here? And it ends up costing the federal government an enormous amount of money and and really for what, right? Um, but you know, I think the other thing to think about here is like for for people who cannot get that loan from a Sally
May or a Navian or a Sofi, they're being turned to credit products that are much more predatory and much worse for them than even those those private student loans. So, we're going to see people taking on credit card debt. We're going to see them increasing their buy now pay later debt and turning to shadier providers with much higher interest
rates and much more ownorous terms for default. >> Yeah. So, the title of this hearing really should be about working families getting run over by the one big beautiful bill. Again, I know they're trying to rebrand the HR1 to a different title, but the fact of the matter is most people in this country have sort of figured out uh what a scam um it is. Um
the American Nursing Association when uh this announcement took came out in November, they made it crystal clear we have a nursing shortage um in this country and this um whole enterprise is going to aggravate um that nursing shortage. Uh Mr. Chairman, I have a
letter from the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology, uh, which again, um, lays out the reason why the the record of the fact that their members have almost a perfect record in terms of loan repayment. Um, and again, the the qualifications are
highly um, stringent. Uh, they do incredibly important work. I just had a knee replacement in December. The anesthesiologist did a great job and I really appreciate that. Again, I would ask that it be entered into the record. And I would also note that on January 29th, the comment period started for
people on this new uh rule out of the Department of Education. Honestly, I think every member of Congress should be standing up for the health care providers, the caring professions, the fact that we have a shortage of critical people in our health care system, which
is only going to get worse, is being aggravated by HR1's loan caps that again are just going to, you know, really hit one of the most critical sectors of our economy. Thank you. I yield back. >> Thank you. Now, I'd like to recognize my
friend from Florida, Mr. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to use my time to basically brag on Florida because Florida has led the way. And I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge Chancellor Rodriguez, who as a third term member of the Florida House uh took a shy, unassuming, very quiet member uh
when he showed up under his wing and helped show me the ropes. And I was privileged during my time in the legislature to help spearhead a lot of the changes we've talked about here today. I chaired education committees for four of my eight and a half years. But while we've talked about loans, one of the things we have not spoken about
in Florida is that in the state of Florida, every single student, everyone, if they work hard, has the ability to go to one of our state institutions for free. In the state of Florida, we offer free instate tuition to every single
student who gets an IB diploma, a Cambridge ACE diploma, or frankly, thanks to the hard work of my son who's now a high school senior, a College Board AP Capstone diploma. You get one of those, you go for free. That's no tuition. That's no loans. And we do
that, I would note, with no state income tax either. That's why perhaps we're the number one um state university system in the country with the lowest tuition. So Florida shows how to do this. Now, one
other way in which Florida has distinguished itself, and I am dealing with this right now as the father of a high school senior um is the safest place in the country for Jewish students to attend school. little known fact, more Jewish students attend the
University of Florida as a raw number than any other institution in the United States, more than any other. And part of the reason for that is a bill that I worked on when I was in the Florida legislature and then House member Rodriguez voted for, House Bill 741,
which was signed into law by Governor Ronda Santis almost seven years ago on May 29th, 2019. a bill that required that anti-semitism be defined and it be treated the same way in our institutions as racism. And so I'd like to take a
minute to ask Chancellor Rodriguez to talk about if that bill has been effective in making Florida's institutions safe for Jewish students and if that might be one of the reasons why more Jewish students go to the University of Florida than any other
institution in the United States. >> Thank you for the question. I want to begin by uh addressing the first part of what you led with which is what we provide students. In addition to those scholarships, Florida's number two
in the nation in financial aid that is awarded to students and we're number two in merit-based aid as well through bright future scholarships as well as the ones you've mentioned. It's played a big role in allowing the best of our state to remain in our state and go to school for free. In terms of your
legislation, it was very important. After the events of October 7th, we saw demonstrations occurring in campuses across this country. While other states were struggling with whether the demonstrations crossed into the action of anti-semitism,
in Florida, we had a definition of anti-semitism because of your bill. So in Florida, there was no ambiguity. We took the step of ensuring that first amendment rights were protected if students wanted to demonstrate they could. But we regulated the time, place,
and manner. Because we had a working definition of anti-semitism, we were able to ensure that our Jewish students were not harassed and we were able to ensure that none of the demonstrations impacted our classes or our common spaces like libraries that all students
need access to. I would say that the definition having the definition of anti-semitism and statute played a key role in our success. As far as uh whether that has attracted more students, I do know if you look at applications coming from the northeast
to our system, they have gone up since the events of October 7th. I suspect there's correlation, but I don't have any data to support that. And as a father of a high school senior who applied and I'm happy to note successfully got into all three Florida universities he applied to I can tell
you it is stunning how competitive these institutions I mean I was shocked there is not a single Florida state university that does not have competitive applications. There was a time when some of the lower ranked ones anyone who applied who was qualified could get in.
That is no longer the case at any of the 12. Last question very brief. When I ran that bill, people were concerned about courts finding it unconstitutional. In the seven years that it's been in effect, are you aware of any court cases that said that that bill has been unconstitutional? >> There have been none in Florida.
>> All right. Thank you. And look, again, Florida leads the way. I believe very strongly. If every state just replicated what you were doing in Florida, we wouldn't have any of these problems that so many people want to talk about today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> Thank you. I'd like to recognize my friend from Morgan, Miss Marti. Is she
right here? Okay, >> Miss Galva from Arizona. Thank you. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I um am the proud parent of a freshman at the
University of Arizona and um affordability, that affordability gap is real. We have a real problem with working families feeling like they can access higher education for their children. So I disagree with the statement that the chairman mentioned at
the beginning saying well you know people are questioning the value of higher education. No we're questioning whether we can send our kids to to school period. So regardless of how um academically you know their prowess in classrooms, their support systems here,
there and whatever, some of the programs that I believe federal funds um have really really done right is programs like TRIO. and TRIO are the programs like Upwardbound, Talent Search, and Student Support Services that really
help students who are first generation students who um are from families where if these programs weren't available, they wouldn't even know how to access loans. And so I think that that is those programs are important and those programs are on the chopping block and
many state and local um universities and community colleges have tried to figure out a way to continue to support these programs. So, I want to recognize Arizona's TRIO professionals and the Western Association of Educational Support Personnel. Work I saw firsthand
literally just last week, whose 2026 training rooted in purpose, growing in community, reflects the essential role of these federally funded programs and how they play in supporting these students that we're talking about, first generation, lowincome, and underrepresented students in our um
community colleges and universities. And while TRIO provides the advocacy and support these students need to navigate higher education, that support must be matched by secure financial foundation. The most effective way to lower costs for these students and their families is
to invest in the PEL grant. As a federal pro as the federal government's foundational investment in college affordability, PEL grants help more than 7 million students attend and complete college each year. The evidence is clear. Need-based grant aid increases
college enrollment and completion for low and moderate income students. PEL grants are especially well targeted to those with the greatest financial need. 74% of recipients come from families earning 40,000 or less annually, including 34% of families earning 15,000
or less. As a result, the PellGrant program serves a as a powerful engine of economic mobility in communities across the country. Notably, 81% of black students and nearly threequarters of Latino students receive PEL grants during their time in school. So, Mr.
Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record an article that further details the impact of Pell Grant programs on college access and student success. >> No objection. >> Thank you. Um, so students across America are struggling to afford college, not only because of tuition,
but because meeting basic needs like food, housing, and child care has become increasingly difficult. Recognizing these challenges, some institutions are responding with innovative supports for low-income students, including campus food pantries, emergency financial aid,
child care for student parents, flexible options for adult learners. Dr. Morgan, given that the maximum PEL grant now covers less than a quarter of the cost of attending a 4-year public college, students are facing massive affordability gap even after receiving
aid. Can you provide us with an overview of how this gap contributes to the basic need challenges such as food and housing insecurity that students face today? >> Yes, I think there there are two important factors for us to think about with this this basic needs gap. So one is the one that you mentioned which is
the Pell Grant and other aid that students get from their institution or from their state doesn't cover enough of the cost of college putting a lot of burden on the individual who as to your point from lower inome families particularly students of color. Those burdens are already pretty
insurmountable in in on their own. I think the other thing to think about is that you know the burden of paying for college doesn't fall on a family in a vacuum. it falls in the context of all the other costs that they face including health care, utilities, all of these
these costs that are rising under um under Donald Trump. So I think about the cost of health care in particular where we've Congress has allowed the um the subsidies for ACA to um to lapse and now families are facing much higher health
care costs. For some families, that's an additional $4,000 a year, right? That is the cost of attending a community college. It's a big chunk of attending a 4-year institution and that's putting even more pressure on the individual and and to your point, colleges have done a
lot to try to meet these basic needs, but they cannot keep up when this is three and five students who are facing um facing basic needs challenges. >> So, how can federal, state, and local governments work with colleges to support students basic needs? >> I think that states and the federal government have to step in here. We have
to understand that the the aid that um and the appropriations that we provide to these institutions are going to be the the major way of filling that gap. >> Yeah. Um so the HR1 repayment assistant plan hurts low-income borrowers. Dr.
Morgan, for millions of borrowers, um student loan repayment is not just a financial issue. It shapes whether you can save for a home and start a family. So I appreciate all of your um your feedback here. Thank you and I yield back. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm a
friend from Guam, Miss Milan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the subcommittee hearing today, especially, we are finally addressing the runaway college spending uh that we are seeing today. Uh Dr. um EC Eert, right? Uh you
you expressed that really well on your opening statement. So, thank you so much. And it is a runaway college uh spending situation that we're seeing here. Um we have a study here provided by the US consumer goods and services and wages and it price looked at the
price changes from the year two January 2000 to December 2025. Um they talked about housing uh that was up 111%. Uh they talked about medical care up 140%. Child care up 150% 58%.
And then college tuition up 200%. The only thing higher than that was hospital services, but 200% from the year 2000 to 2025. It's it's a runaway as we mentioned what this what this hearing is about is a
runaway college spending. The issues are uh now what are we going to do about it? And that's why we're addressing our our tax bill here for the working families tax cuts. and we have some meaningful uh provisions to combat
this rising cost of college. Um Mr. Lamward, uh you mentioned that a study done back in the 80s where the last time a college cost kept up with the pace of medium income was back in 1982. Uh and so that's uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'd like
to enter to the record that we do have a Forbes article uh uh specifying that uh stating s such as it is that the uh cost of living and uh college costs are are just not staying together. I'd like to enter that into the record. >> No objections.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Mr. Rodriguez, you you reminded me in your opening statement about what I went through going through college myself. I did have those part-time jobs. Uh, and I did um, actually I joined the army uh, to help pay for my school and it and it
worked out quite well. Uh, but back then it was 1986 when I graduated from college and I still have friends that I believe are still paying for their student loans as well. That's over 40 years ago. And that's why it's important we're having this and the House Republicans are working for lowering the
financial barriers for all students. All students in the states but also in the territories. the territories, Guam, which I'm from, it cost us much more to get our professionals degree, to fly to the mainland to uh to house our our
students there, and then also the the airfare, of course, and then we're paying out of state tuition in addition to that. So, compared to these price changes, it's a it's enormous for the territories to try to get higher education to travel to the states, and
this is why this measure is important. So, I'd like you um Dr. actors to please um expand upon some of the things you were you were discussing especially what the results of when we have unlimited federal borrowing for graduate students.
This is one of the critical problems that's been plaguing higher education for a decade now. Um the reconciliation legislation did really a fantastic job in taking a first step towards tackling it. We know that with graduate students able to borrow basically unlimited sums,
pair that with a lack of uh high levels of financial literacy and you get students paying more for their education than it's really going to be worth and is really appropriate for both those individuals and for taxpayers. These new limits put in place limits that put downward pressures on institutions so
that they can charge less or they will charge less for these programs. And it also ensures that people are not going to be left with that overhang of debt to pay for their graduate and professional degrees that last well into their career. So it's a tremendous innovation most critically as a consumer protection.
>> Uh thank you for that. Mr. Lambert, you also mentioned a three-year plan. Can you expand a little bit more on that? It sounded really interesting. >> Yeah, thank you. So again, this was this was a conversation with the Utah legislature. And in Utah, when you look
at the total appropriated funds, tuition, and state support, Utah contributes 63% of the cost of higher education uh from taxpayer funds. And and and so the question was for taxpayers and for those who represent
those taxpayers in the legislature, are they confident that that investment is providing a good return? In other words, is it providing value to the students and is it providing value to the state? And so they they asked us to take a look at all of the programs, all of our administrative costs, basically anything
that's that that is included in that cost that is passed on through tuition and taxpayer support and say, can you make cuts in any of these areas? and as a reward for finding those cuts will allow you to keep that investment from the state tax dollars as long as it's
going to an area where we're seeing a high return on investment for the state itself. And when you look at where those reappropriations went to, every single one of the schools in our system got all that money back from the legislature. It went to areas like healthcare, engineering, computer science, general
education, business, technical education. These are all programs that have high enrollment, high completion, high return on investment for the students. and they also help drive our economy. >> Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> Thank you. I'd like now recognize my friend from Oregon, Miss Bonichi.
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and thank you to the witnesses. Uh the cost of college is rising. That's clear. I hope my Republican colleagues can recognize that as Dr. Morgan said, one of the reasons is the persistent disinvestment in higher education at the state level. My colleague from Guam
mentioned something about 1982. school. In 1980, which happened to be the year I graduated from college and started law school, 79% of the revenue for public colleges came from state and local funds. But by 2021, it had dropped to 57%. I wouldn't be here today if I
didn't have the grants, loans, and work study uh that I got to work my way through two years of community college, two years of college, and three years of law school with a very manageable amount of debt. Uh and I'll tell you, work study was a great program. We need to enhance that. I've been working on that
for a while. But we could also make a significant difference if we invested more at the federal level. It is not a lack of resources. It is a policy choice. Now, I want to talk about the HR1, which I call a big ugly bill because I don't think it's beautiful. You I
support workforce PAL, but I want those workforce PEL grants to be available to people who affirmatively want to go into workforce jobs, not as a backup for somebody who thinks, I really could do well in college, but I can't afford it. Uh so first we we talked about this
already in the committee. The HR1 cuts Medicaid and SNAP which is making it harder for families to pay for healthcare and groceries. And now states as I know as a former state legislator are trying to fill those gaps with their limited budgets. and students were going will pay the price and and yes there
working families tax cuts is part of the title of this hearing but at the same time all the other costs are going up because of chaotic tariff policies not addressing things like affordable housing uh so we are already facing those high costs for food rent
healthcare utility bills but here's a point I want to emphasize that big ugly bill gave ICE 75 billion dollar close to 75 billion that's with a B dollars and the Customs and Border Patrol almost 65 billion with the B dollars. That was a
policy choice. It certainly wasn't mine. Uh that doesn't sound so beautiful to me. In fact, it's been pretty catastrophic on many levels. I submit that if we had invested that $140 billion in education and economic development instead, we would be far
better off as a nation. I want to ask you, Dr. Morgan, how does a fully funded public university system contribute to the economy and the well-being of the country? Having a strong robust public education system contributes not only to the ability of individuals to get ahead, but
it also contributes to our communities and to states economies as a whole. You know, our our college and university system can be a driver of innovation. It can be a driver of workforce development and a way to handle kind of planning for
the technological changes that are coming our way. But in fact, we're seeing the opposite in the country right now. You know, to your point, we're seeing investments in tax cuts for the wealthy. We're seeing investments in ICE, and we're ignoring these really critical parts of our infrastructure
that help us prepare and build the kind of communities. I >> I also serve on the science, space, and technology committee, which I've been running back and forth to, and I and I want to say that, you know, right now a lot of people in our institutes of higher education who are getting degrees in in sciences, they're being recruited
by other countries. Um, and and that's a serious concern. And we have scientists and people who come to this people who come to this country to study and learn. That's a benefit for us. Uh and we're seeing them not wanting to come right now because of cuts to research, cuts to
science, and because of the uh uh terrible uh immigration policies that are making them feel unfraid unafraid to or afraid to come to this country. So I also want to talk about eliminating the graduate plus loan program uh and establishing loan caps on professional
degrees. many prospective nurses. We've heard a lot from nurses I know as a bipartisan uh ch co-chair of the bipartisan nursing caucus. They're concerned teachers, social workers, that they won't get the financial support they need to complete their degrees. I'm not sure if Republicans thought that
this would somehow force institutions to lower their tuition when they they want to implement this, but it seems implausible in light of the myriad uh financial pressures that they already face. So, Dr. Dr. Morgan, how does HR1 affect the ability of low-income students to afford nursing, medical school, and how will this affect access
to affordable healthcare in the long term, especially in rural and underserved areas? And how should Congress reform graduate school funding to better serve and support students rather than um eliminating uh graduate loan program and establishing loan caps?
What What would be a better alternative? This bill is going to make it much much more expensive for people to pursue education in healthc care fields and particularly for people who were left out of that professional degree um categorization um which was a policy
choice by the Trump administration um to to narrowly define professional degrees. Um so it's going to cost people a lot more money. But I think your question asks a larger question about what this means for our health care system. And if you look at HR1 as a whole, it's putting our entire health care system at risk,
right? We're making it harder for people to be insured. We're making it harder for people to be able to work in hospitals. And I think we're reaching a point where people are seeing that every time they walk into a doctor. >> I represent a lot of rural areas as well as urban areas and the word I've heard over and over from healthcare providers
and systems like the hospital association is catastrophic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> Thank you. I'd like now to recognize my friend from Wisconsin, Mrs. Garland. >> First of all, a couple of comments. Everybody loves Workforce PEL because it sounds so good. Um,
one of the degrees that they made the pitch on in my area was truck driving where they can go to tech school, learn how to drive truck. So, I called some of my local trucking firms because I figured the law of supply and demand should be taking care of that. And sure enough,
all of the ones that I talked to were already paying for the tuition, the trucking firm. So all it was all we're doing with Workforce Pel is we're spending government dollars on a problem that was already being solved by the private sector. I don't know what
anybody else called their trucking firms. And by the way, the same thing is true of advanced welding degrees. The companies were paying for it by their own and now we got the government coming in paying for something that the private sector is paying for. Anyway, um
um it seems to me one of the big problems with education is frequently people get degrees that there's not value. We'll come back to nursing in a second which is a great value. But um you know plumber, electrician today
where we have such a a huge shortage those guys can be making far more than college graduates. Uh does anybody have any suggestions how we can prevent students not from getting a nursing degree but prevent students from getting
a psychology degree or communication arts degree when they could do so much better going into the trades? That's where I think the real problem is. You want to take a crack at it, Beth? >> I can jump in there. Um, you know, my
feeling is that we have an insufficiently informed um, set of consumers when it comes to higher education. We've done too little to help people understand what it is that they're paying for, what they're likely to pay, and what opportunity it's going to deliver to them in the future. Surveys show that people go to college
for primarily one reason, and that's to make more money. And so, if we give people and empower them with this information, they will make the choices that lead them down those paths. And that's I think what the role of government is today. >> Okay. Um, just a another factoid that
I've been trying to point out here. Um, you see those Walmart trucks driving around, you know, live better, whatever it in the back, the Walmart trucks, those guys make 140 grand a year, just so you know. Um,
okay. Uh, I think one of the reasons I want you to some of you guys to comment on it, uh, well, first of all, I'll take a little bit of a shot at what we're doing here because I had some people from the private colleges in my office
the other day. And with regard to nursing, they knew people who wanted to go through that program in like three years and wanted to go to summer school as well as um the regular time. They felt that
because we couldn't uh because of the annual cap in student loan debt that those students um could not get through say in three
years like they wanted. Do you think Dr. Acres there's any way to tinker with that program to get a little more out to kids who are doing summer school? Uh I I can't say I'm an expert exactly on the mechanics of how we would make
that possible, but that seems like an a reasonable accommodation. >> Okay, it's reasonable. Well, we'll let our committee chair, he's not here anymore. We'll let him remember that it's reasonable. I think one of the reasons why the cost of college has gone through the roof is the number of
non-eing personnel and universities and colleges has gone through the roof in the last 40 years. Right? Normally, you'd think if I'm going to set up a college, the vast majority of my employees are going to be professors or teachers of some sort. But instead,
we've had a skyrocketing number of people in non-eing positions. Does anyone care why that's true or comment on that? >> I'll take a stab at that. >> Okay. I read a study that was released a
year ago uh by an economist at AEI, Preston Cooper. He looked at all of the administration across higher ed education from iPads. He pulled the iPads data and the big takeaway I took from his study is there's been
tremendous growth in administration but that tremendous growth is isolated to the top quintile. So for example, the institutions in the top quintile have about 161 administrators per 10,000
students whereas the median across the country it's 70. In Florida we have 62 per thousand students. So I think what we're seeing is a significant increase. That increase is largely isolated to Ivy League, Ivy League plus and very
prominent flagship institutions. But the vast majority of the institutions have had a very slow growth over that time. >> I'm not sure that's right. You mentioned administrators and one of the areas that I think is going up as counselors and those sort of people,
but thank you very much for giving me another 10 seconds. >> Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from Georgia, Miss McBth. >> Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for uh coming today. Thank you to each of our witnesses. I don't have any formal questions for you today,
but I would like to say that the American people know that it has become far too expensive to simply get the skills necessary to provide a decent life for themselves and for their families. But the solution to that problem is not to cut federal dollars
and to force students and families to make up the difference on their own with their savings or by taking out highinterest loans that will they'll never be able to pay those back. Republican reconciliation bill does nothing to really lower the price of
higher education on the back end or help people keep more of their own money. All this does is shift more of the cost of school away from the taxpayer dollars that people have already paid towards money that they have saved on their own.
People are going to pay more of their own money for school while they pay the same amount in tax and get less in return from their government. Regardless of what you hear today, that truly is the truth. And I believe it's the major
reason why the American people are so frustrated with their government. Instead of using tax dollars for schools and scholarships, instead of using the people's money for programs that really help them afford basics like daycare, prescription drugs,
or any of the things that have gotten too expensive, this majority holds hearings and votes on bills to act like they are addressing these problems as they push policies that make these problems worse. Every Republican member of the House,
except for two, voted to cut the Pell Grant and to take it away from part-time students who may be working or raising a family, just two. The Pell Grant, a program for students with significant financial need
for the students and families who have the least in our country. There are members of this majority who had millions of dollars in PPP loans forgiven during the pandemic, but refuse to help nurses and teachers go to school
so that they can do some of the most important jobs that are needed in our society. There are members of this body who had loans forgiven for amounts that many Americans only dream of making in their lifetimes.
All while they cut funding for health, health care, and education. Time and time again, Republicans ask the American people to listen to what they say, but please ignore what they do, to ignore the loans that they secure and
forgive for themselves while they ask everyday people to buckle down and make sacrifices. Before coming to Congress, I was a flight attendant for 30 years. So, I know what it's like to be a single mom, and I know what it's like to struggle to
make ends meet. But instead of doing anything to make life more affordable, like capping interest rates on loans, Republicans are making Americans pay more for something that is as basic as getting a decent job. At a time when
Americans are looking for some breathing room to keep their head above water, this majority continues to support policies that squeeze them as much as possible. I would like to remind everyone that
these are choices that this majority actively makes every single day. They choose to make life more expensive and increase the national debt that they claim that they care so much about. They choose to cut programs for disabled
students, to cut grants and scholarships for the lowest income students and families in this country. The American people are tired of these broken promises. They are tired of being asked to give more and more and more of
themselves while it gets harder and more expensive to acquire the skills necessary to just get a decent job and keep it. I yield. >> Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my
friend from Missouri, Dr. Honor. >> Thank you, Mr. chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses for appearing here today in front of this subcommittee. Uh, last year, House Republicans and the Trump administration put an end to a government policy that exploded college
costs, unlimited student loan borrowing. Before the passage of the Working Families Tax Cut Act, colleges were incentivized to raise the cost of attendance far beyond the pace of inflation because they knew they could count on the federal government to
subsidize the increase. However, the job is not done. We can continue to make college more affordable by improving price transparency, something we need in many areas of the economy, including my own area of healthcare. I'm working with my friend from Kentucky, Chairman Brett
Guthrie, on the Student Financial Clarity Act. Our bill creates a universal net price calculator and expands the college scorecard so students can compare costs, outcomes, and financial aid across multiple institutions. This committee has approved that bill
and I'm hopeful that it will be brought to the House floor soon. After college, many students don't know how to navigate the loan repayment process. They are overwhelmed and don't feel they fully understand there will ever be an end in sight. Uh they receive loan disclosures
that are hard to understand. The disclosures should prioritize important personalized information such as origination fees, interest rates, and early early play payment plans. But current law only requires lenders to give three um disclosures. one at
reimbursement, one before repayment, and one one at dispersement, one at or before repayment, and one during repayment status. Miss Acres, do you think students would benefit from regular monthly disclosures um during the life of their loan?
>> Absolutely. We know from research that students are not aware of how much they're borrowing even just months after fi signing their initial promisary note. So, the system is really broken. This is in the interest of the institutions who don't necessarily want them to be have at top of mind how much they're paying every semester. Yes. But something that
we need to fix. Absolutely. >> Uh do you think that those disclosures should include projected monthly payments based on how much a student borrowed with an option to pay any interest that occurs while the borrower is still in school? >> Absolutely. I ran an experiment probably 10 years ago trying to show that when we
give people this information, they become better informed, make better choices. Turns out they had so little information. anything we gave them moved, you know, was was a huge gamecher. Um, I think that we need to re put this information into context for student borrowers. That big number of how much they're borrowing, maybe
$30,000 for STEM students, might be meaningless for somebody who has never managed a household budget. Anything adding context to allow people to make better decisions um because if we empower them to do so, they will make the right decisions for themselves. So, I think this is a step in the right direction. I think a lot of policy
errors we make in Washington regarding economic and social policy assume that people are are not rational economic actors. I think that is far from the case. I think I think in almost every context in life human beings are
rational economic actors but they can't be if there is not price transparency and transparency about terms of complex financial instruments like loans. So I appreciate that. >> Yeah. Um, you know, fortunately, there's also a bill that accomplishes the above,
the Student Loan Disclosure Transparency Act. This bill was introduced last Congress by then Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, and I look forward to reintroducing it with her successor, Congressman Vindman, uh, as a co-lead. Um, let's see, how much time do I have
left? Um, finally, I want to examine a state level reform that to make college more affordable. Again, as everyone in this room knows, the federal government plays a limited role in education policy and often states um lead the way. By
rewarding professors for strong student outcomes, tenure reform could increase institutional efficiency and re refocus spending on student success. Uh Mr. Landward, in your testimony, you discussed uh Utah's um success with
posttenure review uh system reform. How does Utah's post-tenure review system help institutions control college costs for students and taxpayers? >> Well, the intent here is accountability and value. Again, we're relentless on just asking the question, uh, anybody
who is employed at any of our universities, no matter what role, we have to ask the question, uh, are you contributing to the core mission of the institution, are you doing so efficiently and effectively? With post-tenure review, this is an opportunity to give us sightelines into the performance of every professor no
matter what their status is uh in the faculty ranks. And and this allows us to ensure that there's an annual review of their performance based on factors. There's a comprehensive post-tenure review every five years, but also that we're only making decisions based on uh substantive issues with their teaching
and research and not political issues or other items. And so it balances that along with due process to ensure that we can protect academic freedom and still have transparency and accountability and performance. >> Thank you very much. I yield back. >> Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from California, Mr. Dalier.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the witnesses. Um it's an important discussion. I appreciate it being here. In the discussion uh in this committee for the past year, we've had a lot of not very subtle sort of elites versus
working people. And I'm reminded of my parents who were the first people in their families to ever go to college and how proud they were were of that. My dad's dad was a cab driver in l Massachusetts who ended up owning the company but never went to college. My mom's dad was a firefighter,
an Irish firefighter outside of Boston. Who could imagine who was very proud of the fact that he worked very hard so that his daughter could go to college. Um, so one of the things I want to ask you, Dr. Morgan is sort of following in that which we forget sometimes that the
American higher education system is something to be tremendously proud of. Um like all in human institutions it has its uh shortcomings and sometimes uh things that I disagree with but the importance of remembering that the
people who go to college are like my grandparents aspiring for their kids to go to college. It's not all people who have had the good fortune to inherit a lot of money. most people are aspired to it in California. I'm very proud of the University of California, California
State University system and particularly the community college system. So that there is a track if people choose if they want to do um they want to graduate from high school and and do career tech that's great too and we have a great program for that. but really
discouraging the past year and all the politics, the optics of who are fighting for working people and elites and other class uh sort of challenges that this country has had. Dr. Morgan, what are the things that you really stand out to
you and what we refer to on our side as the big ugly bill that's really make it harder for that tradition of Americans to be able to aspire if they choose to go to college? I really appreciate your question. I also grew up in a
working-class area of Massachusetts where not a lot of people went to college. And >> you don't have an accent. Way to go. >> Over time, it just I just lost. >> I I was born in LOL and grew up and went to college in Worcester. >> Oh, great. I grew up in Fall River. >> Oh, Fall River. Wicked. >> Go Pats.
>> Um, so you you saw exactly what you're describing. You know, people were really focused on getting their kids a better life, a more secure life than what they had. they're saving to send their kids to college and you know in many cases that is what we want for our country right but what we've seen over time from
the time that I was going to college to now that people have to take on incredible amounts of debt both parents and students to make that happen right and so they're ending up in in a very risky situation where if they don't get the job that they thought they were
going to get they don't have that income they thought they are going to be struggling to repay those loans and regretting the decision and HR1 makes that much more risky for people. You know, we're going to see the Medicaid and SNAP cuts squeeze state budgets to push public tuition uh public college
tuition even higher. Um and the the bill makes it more expensive for people to pay back their loans as well. So, if you are one of those people who takes on more debt than you can afford based on your income, this bill pushes you closer to default than you would have been otherwise. So, I listen to younger
people all the time, my two sons in particular, who complain about baby boomers. Um, and I Elizabeth Warren's great book, The Two Income Track, long before she got involved in politics, I think really summed up the challenges generationally that the five household
costs that economists count, education, healthcare, transportation, um, spacing taxes, and I'm spacing on the last one, but when you look at those generationally and education a key part of that, what we just talked about, it really makes the affordable
affordability issue tougher. I heard a comment in a meeting today that wages are far underperforming GDP. So all that money is going to capital investors. So the concentration of wealth is getting worse and worse and education is part of that. So the very thing that some of my
colleagues rail about when they complain about elitism, their actions from my perspective are fostering that. working people and poor people can't afford to go to higher education when they got to when they have to worry about their paycheck to paycheck. But the rest of the GDP is growing because of private equity.
>> Absolutely. We're increasing that gap between working-class families and the wealthiest families in this country. And increasingly our economy is getting tied up only in the decisions made by that wealthy elite part of the country. And the rest of us are kind of left on our own. It's really concerning. The only
other thing I would say is that those same things that Elizabeth Warren wrote about so many years ago, education, healthcare, housing, those are the same costs that we're still waiting for our leaders to fix for us um so that we can all live a more secure and stable life. >> Well, as Benjamin Franklin said at the
founding of this country, any educ any investment in education will always be the best investment for Americans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. I'd like to now um have my friend from
California, Mr. Collie, recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh a little over two years ago, we reached this crisis point in American uh higher education uh with uh sort of the uh you know the the horrifying uh anti-semitism that we saw
uh on our college campuses bringing this crisis into sharp relief. And I said at the time uh this was a moment of reckoning for American higher education. Uh where uh you know we saw our universities which are supposed to be the leading centers of open discourse and debate had become some of the most
repressive institutions in American life uh in terms of censorship uh and limiting free speech. We saw our universities which are supposed to be places where humanist values flourish uh becoming hotbeds of one of the world's most retrograde and ancient prejudices
uh when it came to anti-semitism. And then at the same time uh it gave us uh an occasion to focus on other aspects of university life where more and more our universities were becoming costlier and costlier for students, a greater and greater source of indebtedness for
graduates and yet delivering less and less value. uh were not well adapted in many cases uh to the demands of our modern economy uh and our workforce. So in response uh this committee has been trying to tackle reforming American
higher education from all of these different angles. Uh we of course uh have had a still ongoing investigation into anti-semitism uh with a number of leading university uh presidents resigning after testifying uh before this committee. Uh in conjunction with that, we've seen uh in many institutions
renewed commitments to freedom of speech, efforts to take anti-semitism, uh treat it with the seriousness uh that it deserves, uh faculty reforms, reforms designed to promote uh institutional neutrality, uh reforms to eliminate coerced uh so-called diversity
statements. So, there's been some pretty good progress in that respect, though there's certainly uh a long ways uh to go. And then on the other side of the of the issue uh with HR1, we of course addressed the uh indebtedness and affordability uh aspects of the problem
with trying to make college more affordable uh limit indebtedness uh and providing incentives to teach skills that are of economic value uh to graduates. So we made progress there as well. Though again, we still have a long way to go and a lot of the reforms that
need to happen uh particularly when it comes to uh our public institutions do exist at the state level. So I'm really glad that we have with us today uh two leaders of systems that have been very innovative uh in that respect. So, I'd just like to give um Commissioner uh
Landward and Chancellor Rodriguez an opportunity to discuss some of the reforms you've highlighted today, but how your efforts sort of work towards addressing all of these aspects in a way that focuses the mission of the university on what universities are
there for. Uh and ultimately allows you to serve your students uh and limit the costs and expense uh that goes into getting an education. Thank you for the the question. With the risk of sounding reductive in in operating a system of higher
education, a public system of higher education, the first question that we have to ask is how is what we provide going to benefit the state of Utah and its citizens. Every dollar that comes in should provide value to the state. It should help drive economic prosperity. It should better the lives of the people
that live within the state. It should provide students who receive our degrees or certificates high value in what they're offered. And so it's a fundamental question you have to continue to ask in everything that we do, whether it's how we design our system, how we uh approach tuition and fee setting, how we approach what
programs we offer and where they offer them, how we approach the mission of each institution. The question is, will this benefit the students and will this benefit the state? And so if we look at anything that's beyond that mission of that system or beyond the mission of the institution, then we have to question
why we're providing it and why we're funding it. And if we just continue to ask those questions, is this best for the state? Is this best for the student? We often get to the right decision, no matter what's happening around us, no matter what the swirl is saying, those fundamental principles that we go back to lead to those better decisions. And
that is we want higher education to be valuable and we want it to benefit the state and the student. Great perspective. Does it benefit the state? Does it benefit the student? Uh, Chancellor Rodri Rodriguez, >> thank you for the question. I mentioned in my opening remarks, we embrace performance-based funding. We have
metrics in addition to retention and graduation and post-graduate employment. We have metrics that tie our degrees to the workforce needs of the state, programs of strategic emphasis, and both our undergraduate and graduate degrees. And the reason we have those metrics is
to encourage universities to grow those majors so that the students benefit with a well-paying job when they graduate. >> Thank you very much. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that uh your efforts provide a great model and the work of this committee has been truly of
paramount importance when it comes to reforming higher education uh for uh the benefit of our young people and for our country's future. I yield back. >> Thank you so much. I'd like to u recognize my colleague from Minnesota Uh, M Miss Alman. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, over the
past year, we've heard our Republican colleagues claim that their solution in the one big beautiful bill will somehow make college cheaper for working families. This is the same bill that cut a trillion dollars out of Medicaid and
over $180 billion uh from SNAP. The logic is hard to follow. by leaving millions without health care and struggling to buy groceries, higher education will apparently just become more accessible. It is no wonder that when the American people finally had the
chance to see what was in this hideous bill, it was so unpopular that my Republican counterparts had to rebrand the name. But just because you put working families in the title doesn't mean you are not screwing them over. The
reality is there is no amount of sugar coating that can undo the damage that will be done by this disastrous legislation. Miss Morgan, I'd like to ask you some basic questions uh to correct the record. Miss Morgan, does
this law, this new law require schools to immediately lower their costs? >> It does not. Does this law uh drastically increase funding for bell grants and other grant programs so that students won't have to borrow loans to go to college? >> It does not.
>> Okay. So, without more grant assistance, without forcing colleges to lower their costs, does this bill provide more access to federal loans? >> It does not. >> All right. Thank you. So, we're not making uh college colleges lower their costes. We are not providing more grant
aid. We're not taking we are not taking away federal uh loan options. Where do we expect families uh to come up with the money to make up the differences? Miss Morgan, >> I think there are two options. I think there are people who will not go to college because college has become more
expensive under this bill and I think there are people who are going to take on private student loan debt. >> So let's talk about the private market. When this bill was being considered by Congress, private lenders were celebrating because they knew that this was their opportunity to cash in on the
backs of families desperate to find a way to pay for their kids to go to college because these type of loans involve a lot more financial risk and fewer protections for consumers. Miss Morgan, can you expand on why these private loans are so risky?
>> You know, private loan, there are a couple of different kinds of private loans. There are what we consider to be like the breadandbut private loans that are offered by maybe like a Sally May or a Naviant. These loans are going to have a higher interest rate and they're going to have fewer options for people when they get in trouble on paying their
loan. They don't have the forgiveness options. They don't have the income based repayment options. There's another kind of like underbelly of the student loan program that is predatory credit products that are going to be available to lower income students who can't get those breadandbut products. And those
are going to be even worse. They're going to have higher interest rates. They're going to have more ownorous repayment terms and they're going to land people in default. >> And how does the Trump administration's gut getting of the Consumer um Financial Protectant Bureau increase these risks?
>> There's no cop on the beat anymore. You know, there's no one keeping an eye on those private student lenders to make sure not even that they're treating students well, right, but that they're just following the basics of our consumer financial laws. So, I think that's a huge concern. I think the other
thing to bear in mind is that the CFPB over the past four years has still been trying to clean up the problems we saw private student lenders cause two decades ago. There are people who are still trying to deal with loans that they took out 20 years ago through
predatory colleges and predatory lenders. And so there's no one there's no one there to help those bars either. >> It is clear that the Republicans big ugly bill does nothing to make college more affordable. But what it does do very well is push working families into
the jaws of the private market. Thank you so much for your testimony today and I yield back. >> Thank you. I'd like now to rec recognize my friend from Washington, Mr. Garner. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding such an important hearing. Uh, higher education is truly
one of the gems of American society and the way it creates social mobility, innovation that fuels our economy, uh, and research, uh, that advances our family farms. Uh but it is a jewel that has become tarnished in uh recent years with runaway costs and uh a growing
leftist political agenda that has replaced the skills needed uh for the American job market with a radical and sometimes Marcus political ideology on college campus. So we certainly have a work a lot of work to do to uh polish this gem and I salute the big beautiful
bill and the work of this committee uh for doing some of that important polishing uh earlier this year. Uh I am the son of university professor and grew up in a college town. uh after attending Wash State University, I went to Africa and uh spent a year uh as a volunteer
teaching at Catholic University in Mosamb beek and then uh went to Harvard for a master's degree where I was also a teaching fellow in taught some Harvard undergrads and uh while a state senator I spent a little bit of time uh teaching at Science Poe University, a counterinsurgency course at Science Po
University in Paris which is sometimes referred to as the Harvard of France. And so I've had a wide variety of experiences in higher education. Would not consider myself an expert if I' had had a wide variety. And uh what I've come to conclude is there's not a lot of difference in undergraduate education outside of the will of students to work
that they can great get a great education at uh at really any institution if they have high standards and a culture of education. And that is why it is so distressing to me we have these mounting student debt loads across uh the country because we are taking
away students freedoms and family their their famil family's freedoms with all of this debt that has been piled on uh to college education that really does not serve an educational purpose. When I was in the wash state legislature uh the Democrats uh we unusual for state
Republicans actually had control of the Senate uh when I got there. We won some elections and had good members and did smart things and not stupid things and we took the majority and what happened with the Democrats when they were running state legislature is they had paid a lot of lip service to higher ed. It was always their fourth or fifth uh favorite priority. But what they had
really done is defunded higher education and used those funds to expand social welfare services and health care. Give state employees across the board big pay increases and move this money out of higher education and then look to students to backfill with increasing debt burdens. So when Republicans took control, one of the things I said is we
got to color in big bright big beautiful lines uh like Ronald Reagan and uh said to do and let's actually reduce the cost of college tuition. So I helped Republicans and one of my colleagues John Braun was state senator there working with me uh ran actually ran the bill. Uh we reduced the price of college
in Wash State uh by 20% at our regional universities and 15% at our flagships then backfilled the universities. In part, we could do that uh because we could do things in higher ed for pennies on the dollar compared to uh to K through2. And I always argue, you know, it's hard for Republicans to win a spending war with the Democrats and the
teachers union on on K through 12. But when we did that, we dropped the price by mandate and then we locked uh future in uh costs of uh of uh college to inflation plus population growth and said, "Universities, this is the structure you have to work within."
Because I see no reason why higher education costs uh need to go up. in uh higher than inflation was population. Frankly, they should be lower because they already have a lot of uh infrastructure. But so that would be one idea. I also think that we should always articulate that the right price for
college is the price that every student should get through with no debt. And by that I don't mean that it should be subsidized. We need to have the taxpayers to do this, but the right price for college ought to be incentivizing work for a reasonable summer job and part-time work so that
people can work their way through college. And I think that should be our northstar in what the price to the college should be. That there's an expectation that students going to work. And that doesn't mean every student gets to go to Mazatlon and spring break and have three Starbucks Frappuccinos a day
and live this Kim Kardashian uh lifestyle that they see on social media. It means that you go to your local college or community college, you work, and you get through college with zero debt. And I really think that's something that Republicans and Democrats uh can unify on. Um I think part of the
recipe has to be uh forcing the colleges to uh like the administration is doing to get back to the basics and I salute that and some of it needs to be uh not allowing so much predatory lending which has gone on the f federal government has facilitated these credits uh debt loads.
But if we can just get back to the basics of a streamlined uh undergraduate model that focuses on core competencies that the government wants uh and isn't always about climbing walls and uh ice rinks and keeping up with the Kardashians social media nonsense and
just get back we can repolish this gem and I think in a way that Republicans and Democrats can work together. So, I salute the good work uh of this uh committee hearing. And uh I'm out of time now after my little uh saliloquy here, but would enjoy uh discussing with each of you this idea, particularly the
the the northstar of what the price should be and whether we can uh keep college tuition growth underneath inflation plus population like Republicans did in the state legislature. Thank you very much, Mr. uh chair. And without a yield back. >> Thank you so much. I'd like to round recognize my friend from Pennsylvania, Miss McKenzie.
>> Great. Thank you, Mr. chairman and appreciate all the panelists being with us here today. I represent the Lehigh Valley and Pennsylvania region uh that has a tremendous amount of institutions of higher education. We're very proud of all of those organizations and entities that provide great educational
opportunities for people not only in our region but from around the country. Over the past several decades though, we've seen that the cost of higher education has risen far faster than families are able to keep up with. And this has led many students to take on increasingly large amounts of debt or be priced out
of college education altogether. And so I would like to ask our panelists uh we have two individuals from institutions of higher education. What are the most practical and effective steps that institutes of higher education can take right now to reduce the cost and make
college more affordable to students and families? I'll go to Mr. Lanward first. >> Okay. Thank you. Well, there there are there are several things that you can do. You know, one is to have good metrics into the performance of every single program at the program level to know what are the cost of the degrees,
what are the outcomes, what are the completion rates, what are the enrollments and make hard decisions when the data doesn't support the programs. That's the first thing. The second thing is to stay within your mission and role. Don't duplicate in a state system any way what you can accomplish through partnerships within the state system and
provide uh access to good programming, good degrees, good certificates to students across the state through partnerships among institutions rather than institutions competing against each other. Another thing that I think isn't talked about enough is building a robust partnership with the K through2 system
in each state to have concurrent enrollment offerings. In Utah, 26% of our high school students have uh concurrent concern enrollment courses. They're enrolled in college. We charge $5 per credit hour to those students. They have saved uh well over $100
million in tuition in one year alone in Utah by enrolling in concurrent enrollment and have earned over 400,000 credits at that significantly reduced price. Now they can enter college uh with a head start in completing faster and that means more savings. So that
kind of partnership is another area that you can do now that has a profound impact. >> Fantastic. And uh appreciate those thoughts. We have a similar program with dual enrollment for our high school students and our local community college which works very well. I'll go next to
Mr. Rodriguez for your thoughts. >> Thank you for the question. As I mentioned earlier, we have accountability in our system through performance-based funding. One of our metrics from day one has been affordability. That is something we measure our institutions on and then
appropriate based upon their success. The most significant change we've made in Florida to impact the cost to students was about five years into our performance-based funding. We changed our metric on completion, left the
universal six-year graduation metric, and adopted a four-year graduation metric, encouraging our institutions to identify what are the barriers that are keeping their students from graduating in four years and giving them the incentives to eliminate those barriers.
And if you do that right off the bat, you're saving your students 50% of the cost because they're getting out in four years instead of six. And we all had barriers. What we found in Florida was we had institutions that weren't offering the classes that were needed or weren't offering enough sections that
were needed for students to graduate. We had uh in programs we had a number of programs 87 majors where institutions had added additional requirements that forced the student to stay there more than four years. And then we had institutions that did not have enough
student adviserss to guide the students through the process. We made changes in each of those areas and now our four-year graduation rate is 60% which is just a tick below the national six-year graduation rate of 65% for
public universities. So we are almost doing in four years what the typical public university does in six. That's why our students are leaving with little debt in addition to our lowest tuition in the nation. >> Great. Well, I appreciate that and uh those types of reforms are are
critically important and I think uh that kind of thinking, not just sticking with the status quo, saying uh we want to do better is very much appreciated. And with the time remaining, I'll go to Dr. Acres. Is there anything that you recommend that we in Congress should be doing uh to limit or reduce the cost of
higher education and limit the amount of student debt? >> Well, I'm absolutely thrilled with the progress that was made through the reconciliation legislation. I'd like to see that work continued, particularly in introducing the price metric into the accountability mechanism that was introduced through the do no economic
harm standard for programs of study. Basically, when a program is offering a really low cost, I think that can be an additional way for them to pass the threshold of participating in the lending program. >> Great. Well, thank you all of you. Uh again, our institutions of higher education are one of the real bright
spots in this country. We want to continue those opportunities for students and families to succeed in life. And we've got to make sure though it's an affordable opportunity for everybody. So, thank you again for being here. And with that, I yield back to the chairman. >> Thank you. I'd like to uh now recognize
my friend from Virginia, ranking member Scott. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Miss Acres, we've heard a lot about the value of the education. Just checking. Is there inherent value in a 4-year onampus liberal arts education
that can't be monetized? >> Absolutely. I believe that's true. There are uh monetary um value in college degrees. There's also something that's intangible and difficult to measure. I emphasize the financial return on investment because that feels like the
first and most important step to making sure that Americans are able to be prosperous. So the federal government does have an interest in funding that kind of education. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. And Mr. Landwood, same question. >> Yes, it does. In fact, when we've made
uh reforms to how we're funding higher education, one of the priorities that we still maintained was that we need a strong thriving general education program in all of our degrees because frankly the we're doing a good job of giving our graduates occupational skills, but what employers are telling
us they still lack durable skills and those durable skills oftentimes come from liberal arts degrees and general education. >> Thank you. Uh Dr. Morgan, we've heard about the difficulty that the big ugly bill has caused um and uh the choice they have
when they run out of money. They either don't go and lose the opportunity or get into the private market, whatever they can get. What are the consumer protections in finan in federal financial loans that aren't available in
the private sector? I think the main protections are when you get into trouble on your loan. If you get into trouble on a federal student loan, presuming that there's proper oversight of our loan servicesers, which we don't always have, um, you know, you have you have the
availability of income driven repayment plans. You also have the option to get your loan forgiven if you work hard and go into public service or after a certain amount of time of repayment. You don't have access to those protections on a private student loan. What about income based payments?
>> You don't have access to income based repayment on a private student loan. >> Um the increase in costs um is the fact that you have you're paying PhDs, higher salaried people. Uh have those in
the workforce with higher salaries. Have those salaries gone up more or less than other salaries? the salaries for for people with PhDs generally or at colleges? >> Well, yeah, both.
>> I mean, if if if your workforce includes a lot of PhDs and the higher income um higher educated workforce income is going up higher than inflation, wouldn't that mean that college costs would be going up, have an
upward pressure on on costs? I I don't I actually don't know the answer to the question. I know that having professors at our institutions who have a PhD um provides a much richer experience and I know we've heard a lot about tenure from
um from the committee today of the subcommittee but um I think there's a real concern with uh people who are forced into adjunct positions at schools. more and more students at our colleges are being taught by adjunct professors who don't have the same protections and don't have the same
benefits as a full-time job. Um, and more and more they're being pushed into programs where the courseware is actually not even provided by the school itself but by an online program manager. >> Um, how much of the increase in costs is due to room and board and not instructional?
>> We've we've seen an increase in costs across the board. So tuition and fees are going up, but you're correct that room and board is going up as well. And that's related, you know, both to some of the factors we've discussed today, including disinvestment. But don't forget, colleges are part of the economy
as well that's being affected by the tariffs and other um options the Trump administration has taken to drive up costs across the board. >> You mentioned disinvestment. How much has state investment disinvestment affected college costs? >> We've seen it over the last several
decades. I I believe um Congresswoman Bonamichi quoted the numbers themselves, but we've seen a drastic decrease in the investment in um of um public state uh of states in public higher education systems. And I believe that we're poised
to see more as a result of HR1 where the cuts to SNAP and to Medicaid are putting immense pressure on state budgets in in addition to the requirement to put in place costly work requirement systems. Um, and we're going to see that squeeze affect public higher education.
>> And what does that do to a student's cost? >> It's going to drive up tuition across the board for students pursuing um their degrees at public universities. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Uh, we'll now move to our um closing remarks. I'd like to recognize Miss Adams for her closing remarks. >> Thank you, Mr. chairman and and thank you once again to our witnesses for speaking with us today. Uh as we close, I want to bring us back to first
principles. College has never been just a personal investment. It's it is a public good. So when we expand access to higher education, we strengthen our workforce, our economy, and our democracy. When we restrict it, we
entrench inequality and leave talent on the table. The affordability crisis that we've witnessed today is not inevit in inevitable. It's the result of policy choices. We can choose to reinvest in students, support institutions that
deliver real outcomes, and address the basic needs that determine whether students can succeed once they enroll. Or we can continue down a path that narrows opportunity and tells millions of capable students that that higher
education simply isn't meant for them. Our responsibility is clear. We should be lowering costs, expanding access, and ensuring that that every student, regardless of income, background, or zip code, has a fair shot at earning a
degree and building a better future. That is the promise of the American dream and it is a promise worth keeping. Thank you all for being here for your testimony. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. This has
been uh extremely extremely helpful and I um I want to start off with just first of all agreeing uh Miss Morgan with with with your comments about how how bad things are. explosion of tuition, enrollment in which kids come in, enroll, they quit, they leave with debt
they'll never pay off, with job skills they'll never have. Uh, and not be able to really build the American dream. But this isn't from the last six months of the family working tax plan. It's from the last 16 years when in 2010 uh,
President Obama through affordable act affordable care act took everything from the private sector and put it into the government. So government has controlled this for the last 16 years. Uh we cannot look at the last six months and say because our reforms all these things are happening. We're now about to to take
care of that. I think the biggest thing that I I'm concerned about is how little we know in our country about capitalism. We are the number one destination in the world because of something called capitalism. Now just quickly what does capital what cap what does capitalism mean and what does it mean to this this
industry here? It's about return on investment. It's competition. It's merit. is value and the and the product of all that is profit. Now, if it's a good program, there's a lot of profit, which it should be. It should spread throughout the entire country. People
should be wanting to to take advantage of it. If it's a terrible product, it should go broke. What we're finding out is that the government does not is insulated from this concept. They can have a terrible competition, no competition, no value, no merit, and
still make a lot of profit off the customer, the students who pay their life blood for the rest of their life trying to pay off loans. So, we need to get back to teaching that. I I think that uh when I think when I listen to my my friends here from
Utah and in Florida, I'll say this about Utah. Uh we are the we lead the country in terms of small business startups. There's an entrepreneurial concept. There's a culture in which we're trying to figure out how to give the best return on investment to wherever we're dealing with. And I think the same thing the way I listen to how you guys are
solving things. Same thing with with Florida. Uh we need to realize that government solutions have never worked. I just came back from Latin America last last week. They are realizing after the last couple years they want to get away from that stuff. So no, it is not it is
not the government that's going to give us the out of this. is going to be entrepreneurs, innovators, those who truly are in the game for the right reasons. That is to make sure our kids are number one and not the institutions, not the professors, not those around just kind of sucking in everything they
can from government payouts. So, I'm excited about the fact we're having this conversation. We can all agree it's broken. It's cost too much. We're getting too little of a return on investment with with our kids coming out, not being prepared to go to work, not being hope for their future, being
angry about everything. That's not what our ed our education should be about. And the other thing is this. Let's just make sure we're transparent enough that everyone realize they don't have to go into debt to go to a four-year college. How about trades? If that could be their way out, if they could look at that as
being their their their their way to achieve their dreams, let them go for that. I think it's very helpful that we finally have competition for for for higher education. It's going to make higher education better. It's going to make sure that the best of the best prove themselves and outcomes will allow
parents to say, "Okay, I will invest in this or the kids will invest in this because it give me a good return on investment. And if it does not, then that institution should go broke. Period." So, I'm excited about the fact we're finally over the last six months putting in reforms. six months.
So, uh, please, as you go back and think about how terrible things are is not because of the Republicans, one big beautiful bill. We'll see that in the coming year and I think you're going to be very very excited about how we're going to turn this out when uh when when everybody can kind of see the u the
product of return on investment and also be educated. So, that being said, again, I want to thank every one of you. This is such a healthy conversation. Uh, I think that the bottom line, if our kids are the end result, if our kids are the focus, our priorities, we're going to
come around and figure out how to make sure that works out and that their legacy will be something we can be very proud of. So, that being said, I'd like to thank our witnesses again for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee today. Without objections, uh, there are no further business. The subcommittee stands observed.
Okay.