U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–703 PDF 2016

STRENGTHENING AMERICA’S HIGHER 

EDUCATION SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 17, 2015 

Serial No. 114–5 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ranking Minority Member 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 17, 2015 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina .......................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher Education 

and Workforce Training ............................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bennett, Mr. Michael J., Associate Vice President, Financial Aid Services, 

St. Petersburg College, St. Petersburg, Florida ......................................... 40 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42 

Bergeron, Mr. David A., Vice President, Postsecondary Education, Center 

for American Progress, Washington, DC .................................................... 26 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Daniels Jr., Mr. Mitchell E., President, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN ........................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Keller, Dr. Christine M., Vice President, Research and Policy Analysis, 

Executive Director, Voluntary System of Accountability and Student 

Achievement Measure, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Washington, DC ................................................................................. 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Additional Submissions: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce: 

Prepared statement of Warren, Mr. David L., President, National 

Association of Independent Colleges and Universities ....................... 78 

Mr. Daniels: 

Purdue Moves ............................................................................................ 73 

Purdue Impacts ......................................................................................... 75 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado: 

Prepared statement of The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union (USW) .................................................................. 83 

Statement of Administration Policy ......................................................... 85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

STRENGHTENING AMERICA’S HIGHER 

EDUCATION SYSTEM 

Tuesday, March 17, 2015 

House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Foxx, Roe, Guthrie, Messer, Curbelo, 

Stefanik, Allen, Adams, DeSaulnier, Davis, Courtney, and Polis. 

Also present: Representatives Kline, Rokita, and Scott. 

Staff present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle Belland, 

Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, 

Chief Clerk; Brian Melnyk, Professional Staff Member; Daniel 

Murner, Deputy Press Secretary; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; 

Jenny Prescott, Legislative Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; Emily Slack, Professional Staff Member; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Tylease 

Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin 

Barbera, Minority Staff Assistant; Eamonn Collins, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Rosa 

Garcia, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor; Scott Groginsky, 

Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor; Christian Haines, Minority Education Policy Counsel; and Tina Hone, Minority Education Policy Director and Associate General Counsel. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Good morning. A quorum being present, the 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training will 

come to order. 

Welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee on Higher 

Education and Workforce Training in the 114th Congress. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We appreciate the opportunity to learn from you about how to strengthen 

America’s postsecondary system as Congress works to reauthorize 

the Higher Education Act. 

Today, too many Americans struggle to realize the dream of 

higher education. Our current system is unaffordable, inflexible, 

and outdated, and has resulted in too many students unable to 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

complete college, saddled with loan debt, and ill-equipped to compete in our modern economy. In recent years, more federal regulations, a lack of transparency, and a dizzying maze of student aid 

programs have only contributed to the problem. 

Students and families deserve better. The upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act provides Congress an opportunity 

to help every individual, regardless of age, location, or background, 

access and complete higher education if they choose. 

To inform the reauthorization process, the Education and the 

Workforce Committee have held more than a dozen hearings. After 

receiving feedback from students, institutions, innovators, administrators, and researchers, the committee established a set of key 

principles that will guide our reform of the postsecondary education 

law. 

First, we must empower students and families to make informed 

decisions when it comes to selecting the institution that meets their 

unique needs. Today’s higher education resources are incomplete, 

inaccurate, and often complicate the financial aid process, misguiding students about their academic and financial options. Developing a more streamlined and transparent system, as well as enhancing financial literacy services, will help students better understand the higher education landscape and make choices based on 

easy-to-understand, relevant information. 

Second, we must simplify and improve student aid. Currently, 

the federal government operates more than 10 aid programs, each 

with its own set of rules and requirements. 

Many students, particularly first-generation and low-income students, are overwhelmed by the complexity of the current system, 

which can ultimately deter them from accessing the aid that will 

help make college a reality. Consolidating this patchwork of aid 

programs will simplify the application and eligibility process and 

help more students understand, manage, and repay their debt. 

Third, we must promote innovation, access, and completion. In 

recent years, as the postsecondary student population has changed, 

many institutions have developed new approaches to delivering 

higher education, including competency-based curriculums and online classes. The federal government should make every effort to 

support these innovations, as they have enabled more Americans 

to earn a degree or certificate faster, with less cost, and without 

additional disruption to their daily lives. 

Finally, we must ensure strong accountability while limiting the 

federal role. The current administration has subjected institutions 

to onerous requirements and regulations, which have created a 

costly and time-consuming process, hampered innovation, and jeopardized academic freedom. Eliminating ineffective federal burdens 

will provide states and institutions the flexibility they need to deliver effectively a high-quality education to their students. 

We are confident, with guidance from higher education leaders 

such as you, these pillars will translate into meaningful federal reforms that reflect the evolving needs of students and the workforce. 

We welcome your policy recommendations on how we can strengthen America’s higher education system to serve students, families, 

workers, and taxpayers better. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

I look forward to hearing from you and from my colleagues on 

this important issue. 

With that, I now recognize my North Carolina colleague, and 

Democrat colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee 

today, Congresswoman Alma Adams, for her opening remarks. 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Today, too many Americans struggle to realize the dream of higher education. Our 

current system is unaffordable, inflexible, and outdated, and has resulted in too 

many students unable to complete college, saddled with loan debt, and ill-equipped 

to compete in our modern economy. 

In recent years, more federal regulations, a lack of transparency, and a dizzying 

maze of student aid programs have only contributed to the problem. Students and 

families deserve better. 

The upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act provides Congress an 

opportunity to help every individual – regardless of age, location, or background – 

access and complete higher education, if they choose. 

To inform the reauthorization process, the Education and the Workforce Committee has held more than a dozen hearings. After receiving feedback from students, 

institutions, innovators, administrators, and researchers, the committee established 

a set of key principles that will guide our reform of the postsecondary education law. 

First, we must empower students and families to make informed decisions when 

it comes to selecting the institution that meets their unique needs. Today’s higher 

education resources are incomplete, inaccurate, and often complicate the financial 

aid process, misguiding students about their academic and financial options. Developing a more streamlined and transparent system, as well as enhancing financial 

literacy services, will help students better understand the higher education landscape and make choices based on easy-to-understand, relevant information. 

Second, we must simplify and improve student aid. Currently, the federal government operates more than 10 aid programs, each with its own set of rules and requirements. Many students, particularly first-generation and low-income students, 

are overwhelmed by the complexity of the current system, which can ultimately 

deter them from accessing the aid that will help make college a reality. Consolidating this patchwork of aid programs will simplify the application and eligibility 

process and help more students understand, manage, and repay their debt. 

Third, we must promote innovation, access, and completion. In recent years, as 

the postsecondary student population has changed, many institutions have developed new approaches to delivering higher education, including competency-based 

curriculums and online classes. The federal government should make every effort 

to support these innovations, as they have enabled more Americans to earn a degree 

or certificate faster, with less cost, and without additional disruption to their daily 

lives. 

Finally, we must ensure strong accountability while limiting the federal role. The 

current administration has subjected institutions to onerous requirements and regulations, which have created a costly and time-consuming process, hampered innovation, and jeopardized academic freedom. Eliminating ineffective federal burdens will 

provide states and institutions the flexibility they need to effectively deliver a high 

quality education to their students. 

We are confident – with guidance from higher education leaders such as you – 

these pillars will translate into meaningful federal reforms that reflect the evolving 

needs of students and the workforce. 

We welcome your policy recommendations on how we can strengthen America’s 

higher education system to serve students, families, workers, and taxpayers better. 

I look forward to hearing from you and from my colleagues on this important issue. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, for holding this hearing on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. In Ranking 

Member Ruben Hinojosa’s absence, I will be serving as your Democratic co-chair of today’s subcommittee hearing, and I am glad to 

do so. 

I wish to acknowledge the ranking member of our full committee, 

Congressman Bobby Scott, and thank him for being here for this 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

important hearing, which marks the beginning of our efforts related to reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. 

To our distinguished panel of experts, welcome, and thank you 

for joining us this morning. 

Today’s committee discussion will focus on ways Congress and 

the federal government can strengthen America’s higher education 

system. For committee Democrats, increasing affordability, accessibility, and student success in higher education are key priorities for 

the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act this Congress. 

Attaining a college degree is more important than ever. According to a recent report of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, by 2018, 65 percent of all jobs will require some form of postsecondary education. 

In light of this, I am deeply concerned that children living in poverty will be left behind without a college degree. As this committee 

considers the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, we must 

ensure that all students, including low-income students that are 

often students of color, have access to a high-quality postsecondary 

education and are equipped with the knowledge and 21st century 

skills that are needed to succeed. 

First, the reauthorization must address college affordability and 

strengthen federal student aid programs. In my view, increasing 

the purchasing power of the Pell Grant, restoring the year-round 

Pell Grant program, can make college more affordable for millions 

of students. 

Today, approximately 8.4 million students benefit from the nation’s federal Pell Grant program. The maximum Pell Grant award 

of $5,700 in 2014, however, covers less than one-third of the cost 

of a public 4-year institution. A restoration of the year-round Pell 

Grant program could help to accelerate degree completion for Pell 

recipients and reduce college costs. 

So I am pleased that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

recognize the value of incentivizing flexibility, continuous enrollment, and college completion for Pell Grant recipients. 

And with regard to federal direct loans, it is vitally important 

that students and families maintain access to student loans with 

low interest rates and affordable repayment options. To reduce student loan defaults and protect student borrowers, we must do a 

better job of improving loan servicing and help struggling borrowers to rehabilitate their loans. 

We must also ensure that parents have access to Parent PLUS 

loans. As you are aware, the changes made to Parent PLUS loan 

programs in 2011 made it more difficult for nearly 28,000 HBCU 

students and their families to afford the cost of a college degree. 

And let’s be clear, the federal government cannot do this alone. 

states and institutions must do their part to rein in college costs 

and make college more affordable. 

To be sure, the federal government can strengthen the federalstate partnership on higher education by incentivizing states to bolster state investments in higher education and state financial aid 

programs. This type of partnership could help make college more 

affordable and accessible for students. 

And while our nation has one of the most comprehensive and 

reputable higher education systems in the world, disparities among 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

institutions persist. For example, HBCU’s and minority-serving institutions continue to be under-resourced. HBCUs represent 3 percent of the nation’s institutions of higher learning but graduate 

nearly 20 percent of African Americans who earn undergraduate 

degrees. 

In addition, the institutions graduate more than 50 percent of African American professionals and public school teachers. Having 

earned an undergraduate and master’s degree from an HBCU, as 

well as having taught at one for 40 years, I clearly understand the 

longstanding contributions that these institutions have made to 

higher education. And because of my experiences, I am especially 

pleased to co-chair the bipartisan congressional HBCU caucus, with 

my colleague, Bradley Byrne. Given their vital importance to 

underrepresented and low-income students, the federal government 

must continue to support and invest in these institutions. 

In particular, the reauthorization of Higher Education Act must 

ensure that HBCUs and minority-serving institutions have the capacity and the resources they need to thrive and provide students 

with access to a high-quality education. 

And finally, our nation’s higher education system must improve 

completion rates for all students. We must move away from linear 

measurements of success that do not take into account the unique 

circumstances that face low-income students that are often students of color. Without a college degree, it becomes more difficult 

for students to access good jobs and careers and to improve their 

lives. 

So moving forward, I look forward to working with my colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle to reauthorize the Higher Education Act 

in this Congress. 

Chairman Foxx, with that, I yield back. 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of North Carolina 

Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, for holding this hearing on the reauthorization of 

the Higher Education Act (HEA). In Ranking Member Rube ́n Hinojosa’s absence, I 

will be serving as your Democratic Co-Chair of today’s subcommittee hearing. 

I wish to acknowledge the Ranking Member of our full committee, Congressman 

Bobby Scott, and thank him for being here for this important hearing, which marks 

the beginning of our efforts related to the reauthorization of Higher Education Act. 

To our distinguished panel of experts, welcome and thank you for joining us this 

morning. 

Today’s committee discussion will focus on ways Congress and the federal government can strengthen America’s higher education system. For committee Democrats, 

increasing affordability, accessibility and student success in higher education are 

key priorities for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act this Congress. 

Attaining a college degree is more important than ever. According to a recent report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, by 

2020, 65 percent of all jobs will require some form of postsecondary education. 

In light of this fact, I am deeply concerned that children living poverty will be 

left behind without a college degree. As this committee considers the reauthorization 

of the Higher Education Act, we must ensure that all students, including low-income students that are often students of color, have access to a high quality postsecondary education and are equipped with the knowledge and 21st century skills they 

need to succeed. 

First, the reauthorization must address college affordability and strengthen federal student aid programs. In my view, increasing the purchasing power of the Pell 

grant and restoring the year-round Pell program can make college more affordable 

for millions of students. 

Today, approximately 8.4 million students benefit from the nation’s federal Pell 

grant program. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

The maximum Pell grant award of $5,730 in 2014, however, covers less than one 

third of the cost of a public four-year institution. A restoration of the year-round 

Pell grant program could help to accelerate degree completion for Pell recipients and 

reduce college costs. I am pleased that my colleagues on the other side of aisle recognize the value of incentivizing flexibility, continuous enrollment, and college completion for Pell grant recipients. 

With regard to Federal Direct Loans, it is vitally important that students and 

families maintain access to student loans with low-interest rates and affordable repayment options. To reduce student loan defaults and protect student borrowers, we 

must do a better job of improving loan servicing and help struggling borrowers to 

rehabilitate their loans. 

We must also ensure that parents have access to Parent PLUS loans. As you are 

aware, changes made to Parent PLUS Loan Program in 2011 made it more difficult 

for nearly 28,000 HBCU students and their families to afford the cost of a college 

degree. 

But let’s be clear, the federal government cannot do this alone. 

States and institutions must do their part to rein in college costs and make college 

more affordable. To be sure, the federal government can strengthen the federal-state 

partnership in higher education by incentivizing states to bolster state investments 

in higher education and state financial aid programs. This type of partnership could 

help to make college more affordable and accessible for students. 

While our nation has one of the most comprehensive and reputable higher education systems in the world, disparities among institutions persist. For instance, 

HBCUs and Minority Serving Intuitions continue to be under-resourced. HBCUs 

represent only three percent of the nation’s institutions of higher learning, but graduate nearly 20 percent of African Americans who earn undergraduate degrees. In 

addition, the institutions graduate more than 50 percent of African American professionals and public school teachers. 

Having earned both an undergraduate and master’s degree from an HBCU, as 

well as having taught at one for 40 years, I clearly understand the long-standing 

contributions that these institutions have made to American higher education and 

to society. 

Because of my experiences, I am especially pleased to co-chair the bipartisan Congressional HBCU Caucus with my colleague Bradley Byrne. Given their vital importance to underrepresented and low-income students, the federal government must 

continue to support and invest in these institutions. 

In particular, the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act must ensure that 

HBCUs and Minority Serving institutions have the capacity and resources they 

need to thrive and provide students with access to a high quality education now and 

into the future. 

Finally, our nation‘s higher education system must improve college completion 

rates for all students. 

We must move away from linear measurements of success that do not take into 

account the unique circumstances that face low-income students, that are often students of color.Without a college degree, it becomes more difficult for students to access good jobs and careers and improve their lives. 

Moving forward, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle to reauthorize the Higher Education Act in this Congress. 

Chairman Foxx, with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Congresswoman Adams. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be permitted 

to submit written statements to be included in the permanent 

hearing record, and without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for 

the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witnesses, 

and I recognize Mr. Rokita and Mr. Messer to introduce our first 

witness—or, Mr. Messer first? 

Mr. MESSER. I will certainly follow the wishes of the chair. My 

apologies. I thought Mr. Rokita was going first, but I am glad to 

greet my good friend, Governor Daniels. And he is a close enough 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

friend of mine that I know he is no fan of long introductions, so 

I will try to keep my comments brief. 

You know, of all the praise and accolades I could give our good 

governor, now the former governor, now the president of Purdue, 

I would just focus on one, and that is that Mitch Daniels gets 

things done, that everywhere he has been, from his distinguished 

business career at Eli Lilly to his time as governor of Indiana, 

where we balanced budgets, had record levels of investment in infrastructure, and reformed government so much so that the consumer experience at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is actually liked 

by the residents of Indiana now, as you can get in and out in less 

than 10 minutes, to his time now at Purdue, where he has frozen 

tuition and received national accolades for that—freezing tuition at 

the 2012–2013 levels—established innovative programs with Amazon that save students up to 30 percent on their textbooks, even 

creating a competency-based degree at Purdue Polytechnic—at the 

Purdue Polytechnic Institute. 

Mitch Daniels is somebody who, throughout his career, has demonstrated that he knows it is important what we say, but even 

more important what we do, and that at this time when many are 

cynical about public policy, the real anecdote to that cynicism is to 

deliver results. This is a man I know who delivers results. 

I am proud to call him my friend. I was proud to call him the 

governor of Indiana. And I am today very proud to call him the 

president of Purdue. 

Thank you for being here today. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Chair. 

Let me add to that introduction simply by saying grateful for 

former Indiana governor and now president of Purdue University, 

Mitch Daniels, for being here. We served together, he as governor 

and myself as secretary of state, for a good number of years, and 

together we supported each other’s work, and I am very proud to 

be a part of the largest transportation infrastructure investment 

program in Indiana’s history, economic development issues, as Representative Messer mentioned, but also thorny political issues, like 

reforming Indiana’s congressional districts and even a photo ID 

that makes sure every vote—at the polls that makes sure every 

vote counts equally. 

They are all examples, as Congressman Messer pointed out, of a 

simple motto that says, ‘‘Leaders lead.’’ And that certainly was 

Governor Daniels, and now I—we continue to support former Governor Daniels as President Daniels, as he leads Purdue University 

in the heart of Indiana’s 4th District. 

Under President Daniels’ leadership, it is important to note that 

tuition at Purdue University has been frozen, and until Mitch did 

that I don’t know of any other university that even attempted it. 

And now dominoes are falling and other universities are replicating 

it. I am sure we will hear from the other witnesses today about 

that. 

And I hope that other university leaders have the courage to not 

only emulate some of the ideas occurring at Purdue University, but 

to even improve upon them. And I am sure we will hear more examples and ideas from President Daniels directly, so I invite comCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

mittee members to welcome a great Hoosier and American, Purdue 

University president and former Indiana governor, Mitch Daniels. 

And I yield back. 

Chairwoman Foxx. You may want to take them on the road with 

you. 

Mr. DANIELS. I am the one who is grateful. Grateful to the— 

Chairwoman Foxx. I am pleased to introduce our remaining witnesses. 

Dr. Christine Keller is the vice president of research and policy 

analysis at the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, 

APLU, here in Washington, D.C. She also directs the Voluntary 

System of Accountability on behalf of APLU and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and oversees the crosssector Student Achievement Measure project on behalf of multiple 

higher education associations. 

Before joining APLU, she was the assistant director of institutional research and planning at the University of Kansas and the 

associate dean of continuing education at Sterling College in Sterling, Kansas. 

Dr. David A. Bergeron is the vice president for postsecondary 

education at the Center for American Progress here in Washington, 

D.C. Previously, Mr. Bergeron served more than 30 years at the 

U.S. Department of Education. During his years with the department, Mr. Bergeron acted as the secretary of education’s chief advisor on higher education issues, administered more than 60 grant 

and loan programs annually, and was responsible for the federal 

postsecondary education program budget and the legislation, regulations, and other policies affecting the department’s postsecondary 

education programs. 

Mr. Michael J. Bennett is the associate vice president of financial 

assistance services at St. Petersburg College in St. Petersburg, 

Florida. Mr. Bennett has worked as a financial aid administrator 

for the past 34 years. He is a former chair of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators and the former president of the Eastern Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators and the New Jersey Association of Financial Aid Administrators. 

I now ask our witnesses to stand and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain our lighting system. You have 5 minutes to present your 

testimony. 

When you begin, the light in front of you will turn green. When 

1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow. When your time is expired, the light will turn red. 

At that point I will ask that you wrap up your remarks as best 

you are able. Members will each have 5 minutes to ask questions. 

I would like now to recognize the Honorable Mitch Daniels for 

his comments. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MITCHELL E. DANIELS, JR., PRESIDENT, 

PURDUE UNIVERSITY, WEST LAFAYETTE, INDIANA 

Mr. DANIELS. Grateful to the chair, to Congresswoman Adams, 

and to the committee for this chance to be here today. 

Thanks, of course, to my good friends, and our congressmen at 

Purdue, Todd Rokita and Luke Messer. 

Thank you very much for the chance to come say, first of all, on 

behalf of the American higher education system, that at a time in 

which our national leadership is under challenge in various dimensions, one area in which we are unquestionably the leader of the 

world is in the quality of our higher ed system. And yet, questions 

are being asked about that system we have not heard before. They 

are legitimate, and the system calls out for modernization and 

change. 

And the timing of this hearing, the timing of the renewal of the 

act under consideration here could hardly be better. The United 

States government can help in many ways with the concerns of cost 

and accommodating new modes of learning better suited to today’s 

young people, better suited to the national economy. 

The two areas—and I was so grateful to hear both of our—the 

leaders of the committee speak to these—two areas I would single 

out, among others, in which the Congress can be of great help. 

First of all, in lowering the barriers to innovation. Comes slowly 

enough in higher ed, but many, many universities—and I believe 

ours is one—are eager to adapt and to new technologies, to new 

needs in the marketplace. 

Many of the rules in place, many of the aspects of the current 

law get in the way; for instance, at Purdue we are very eager to 

begin using summer or making it possible for our students to use 

their summers more extensively than they have historically to proceed to degrees in fewer than 4 years, and here—Congresswoman 

Adams mentioned certainly one way in which the Congress could 

help, by liberalizing the grant programs that we have. The same 

applies to competency-based education, allowing students and helping students to move forward at their own rate and not on the arbitrary agrarian calendar we inherited. 

There are a host of regulations which have grown up over the 

years. All, I am sure, are well intentioned. I recommend to the 

committee’s attention the tremendous report by the American 

Council on Education, which details the difficulties that these regulations now cause and has a host of specific requests for greater 

flexibility. 

They impose enormous cost on the system. At our university, 

based on the work done at Vanderbilt and elsewhere, it is entirely 

credible to assert that as much as $200 million is consumed in complying with the entire complex of regulations. We could send 20,000 

Hoosier students to school for free with that amount of money. 

So this is a—really a marvelous opportunity that is in front of 

the nation, and I would like to say that at our university we accept 

the assignment to play our part. We have worked to make the 

school more accessible and affordable. 

We have frozen tuition, and we are in the second year of at least 

a 3-year hold. Those students who arrived at Purdue when I did 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

will—those who graduate in 4 years will never see a tuition increase, and that is a first for us in a long, long time. 

We have reduced the cost of room and board 10 percent. We have 

acted more recently to reduce the cost of the third most expensive 

item, which is textbooks. Meanwhile, we are making very substantial investments in new modes of teaching, some of which I have 

mentioned here. 

So we thank very much this committee and those other members 

of Congress who will work with you. We do have the finest system 

anywhere. 

It is absolutely imperative to our national success that we make 

it more accessible, more affordable, and more accountable than it 

has been. This is a marvelous opportunity not to be missed. 

[The testimony of Mr. Daniels follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 93703.001
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 93703.002
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 93703.003
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 93703.004
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 93703.005
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 93703.006
17 

Chairwoman Foxx. Dr. Keller? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. CHRISTINE M. KELLER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

RESEARCH AND POLICY ANALYSIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

VOLUNTARY SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND STUDENT 

ACHIEVEMENT MEASURE, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC AND 

LAND–GRANT UNIVERSITIES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. KELLER. Good morning. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 

Adams, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me to speak this morning. 

Access to meaningful postsecondary data for decision-making has 

become increasingly important for consumers, policymakers, and 

institutions. I am pleased to share with you this morning lessons 

we have learned through our experiences with the Voluntary System of Accountability and the Student Achievement Measure. 

The VSA is an initiative by public 4-year universities to supply 

basic data on the undergraduate student experience through a common Web report, the ‘‘College Portrait.’’ Developed in 2007, the 

VSA is jointly sponsored by APLU and the Association of State Colleges and Universities. We currently have 270 participating institutions. 

The VSA champions the importance of providing information in 

a comparable and understandable way to students, families, and 

policymakers. Each institution’s college portrait includes data in 

areas such as college cost, financial aid, degree programs offered, 

and educational opportunities such as undergraduate research or 

study abroad. 

The VSA remains the only national initiative that publicly reports direct evidence of student learning. 

The Student Achievement Measure, or SAM, was created with 

one goal in mind: to provide a more complete national picture of 

student progress and outcomes than the current federal graduation 

rate. By tracking only outcomes for full-time students who graduate from their first institution, the federal graduation rate is increasingly outdated for today’s mobile and diverse students. Using 

SAM, institutions can track the graduation of full-time, part-time, 

and transfer students, as well as students still enrolled and working toward a degree or certificate. 

Currently, SAM has 559 participating institutions and shows the 

outcomes of the half million more students than the federal graduation rate. SAM is sponsored by all six of the presidential higher 

education associations and represents public, private, 2-year, and 

4-year institutions. 

Overall, our experience with the VSA and SAM provide three lessons that are particularly relevant for HEA reauthorization. 

One: Build a foundation of trustworthy data. Reliable information is the foundation for any reporting system. 

It is true that the perfect metric or data source rarely, if ever, 

exists. However, it is equally true that the data needs to be reliable 

enough to represent a realistic set of outcomes. When a data source 

or metric no longer meets that standard, it should be replaced—for 

example, the federal graduation rate. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

18 

Lesson two: Leverage the data already collected and reported. 

Too much data can be overwhelming to external audiences and a 

burden for institutions. 

It is important for those of us who collect and disseminate data 

to work together to better align definitions, enhance comparability, 

and minimize reporting burdens. Before adding other data elements at the federal level, for example, we should question what 

data elements to remove as well as what information is already reported at the state level or through national systems. 

Lesson three: Report key limited information at the federal level. 

APLU recommends minimizing the federal data collected to focus 

on a few key elements related to access, affordability, progress and 

completion, and post-collegiate outcomes, ensuring that the most 

relevant information is readily available to all students. Additional 

contextual information could be made available through institutions’ Web sites, links to state dashboards, or national data initiatives such as the VSA. 

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to offer some of the lessons we have learned. I look forward to your questions. 

[The testimony of Dr. Keller follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 93703.007
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 93703.008
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 93703.009
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 93703.010
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 93703.011
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 93703.012
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 93703.013
26 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bergeron? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. DAVID A. BERGERON, VICE PRESIDENT, 

POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, CENTER FOR AMERICAN 

PROGRESS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BERGERON. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 

Scott, and Ranking Member Adams, for the opportunity to appear 

before the subcommittee today. 

Many years ago, when I was—when the Pell Grant program was 

in its second year, I was fortunate enough to receive a grant to 

cover most of the cost of attending the University of Rhode Island. 

My parents could not afford to have two children in college, and a 

year later a third, enrolled even in a public college, at the same 

time. If it hadn’t been for that support, I wouldn’t be here testifying today, and I know there are millions of other students who 

followed me since then, receiving support. 

Bit about the Center for American Progress: CAP is an independent, nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving 

the lives of all Americans through bold and progressive ideas. Postsecondary education plays a critical role in enabling citizens to 

climb the ladder of economic mobility. 

The federal investments in higher education have paid dividends. 

Since the 1970s, the college-going rate for low and middle-income 

students has grown dramatically, and enrollment now reaches 28 

million students per year. Without investments in Pell Grants, student loans, and other federal programs like the support that is provided to historically black colleges and universities, these increases 

in enrollment and college-going rates among students from low and 

middle-income families would not have been possible. 

College education continues to be the best deal for students who 

graduate, but investments in higher education also pay dividends 

for the broad society. Workers who have some college earn more 

than those who just have a high school diploma, and studies have 

shown that for every 1 percent increase in the share of a population of a state that holds a bachelor’s degree, the earnings of 

those who drop out of high school or drop out of high school also 

increased by 1.9 and 1.6 percent, respectively. 

There are troubling signs, making it urgently important for us to 

do more. First, experts show a shortfall—project a shortfall in the 

number of college-educated workers of 5 million by 2020, when 65 

percent of all jobs will require a bachelor’s degree, or an associate’s 

degree, or some other education beyond high school. This is especially true for middle school jobs that require more than high 

school—a high school diploma but less than a bachelor’s degree. 

Second, the growing levels of student loan debt, as institutions 

continue to charge more. And I applaud the efforts made by Governor Daniels to restrain increases at Purdue. And, as was noted, 

many other institutions are following his lead. The tuition increases in recent years have left significant gaps in funding for students and families, and private loans have often been used to fill 

that gap. 

One of the reasons that we have seen these gaps in funding is 

because states have reduced their support to their public commuCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

27 

nity college and 4-year community—colleges and universities, in 

which three-quarters of our students enroll today. 

To combat the erosion of state support, which has resulted in increases in tuition and fees and student loan debt, the Center for 

American Progress has called for the creation of a public college 

quality compact that would ensure that students have access to affordable education and are able to earn credentials and degrees. 

President Obama’s proposal to make the first 2 years of college free 

at community colleges is an important step forward, as our work 

has shown that community colleges bore the brunt of the spending 

cuts in public higher education in recent years. 

But we need to go further. The center has called for the creation 

of a College for All program that would ensure that all families 

would have access to financial aid and through which students 

would repay some of that aid in—through wage withholding. 

Finally, we have called for improvements to the quality assurance system in American higher education. Today we rely on accrediting agencies and—to ensure that our institutions of higher 

education deliver high-quality programs, but too often our institutions fail our students and they saddle the students with too much 

debt. And we also hear from employers that those who graduate 

just don’t have the basic skills that are needed for the workforce. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I am happy 

to answer questions. 

[The testimony of Mr. Bergeron follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 93703.014
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 93703.015
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 93703.016
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 93703.017
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 93703.018
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 93703.019
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 93703.020
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 93703.021
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 93703.022
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 93703.023
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 93703.024
39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 93703.025
40 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Bergeron. 

Mr. Bennett? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL J. BENNETT, ASSOCIATE VICE 

PRESIDENT, FINANCIAL AID SERVICES, ST. PETERSBURG 

COLLEGE, ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 

Mr. BENNETT. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Adams, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify. 

I am very proud to be here today as a financial aid professional 

who has spent the last 34 years in a profession that has an undying commitment to serving students and families. 

The United States has the most diverse system of higher education in the world, and that is what makes it unique, enviable, 

and strong. However, it is this very facet that makes a one-sizefits-all model of student aid impossible. The varying types of institutions, student demographics, and reasons for pursuing a postsecondary education make it impossible to enact a simple financial aid 

policy. 

My focus will be on the simplification of 3 areas: application 

process, loan repayment, and over-borrowing and loan counseling. 

When we talk about the need to simplify the federal student financial aid application process we are not simply talking about the 

number of questions on the FAFSA, but the efficiency and experience of the entire application process. Most of us would agree that 

110 questions is excessive. By eliminated questions not related to 

student aid and fully utilizing technology and existing federal and 

state systems, we could eliminate a number of the questions, making the process much easier for our neediest students. 

However, we must work together to be sure there are not unintended consequences such as states and institutions being forced to 

develop their own forms if they don’t have enough information to 

make their awards. The fewer data elements we collect the more 

homogenous everyone appears, making it impossible to differentiate those who appear needed from the truly needy. 

We currently use a prior year income to determine financial aid 

eligibility, but a move to 2 years back—what we refer to as prior 

year income—has several advantages. 

Under PPY, students would be able to file the FAFSA earlier 

than they do now and it would be based on an accurate tax return. 

Verification burden for both students and institutions would be 

dramatically reduced through an increased use of the IRS Data Retrieval Tool. Students would receive notification of financial aid 

packages earlier, allowing financial aid administrators to spend 

more time counseling students. 

The secretary of education already has the authority to adjust 

the year of tax data used to determine federal eligibility. In this 

reauthorization we want to see that ‘‘may’’ turned into a ‘‘must.’’ 

Currently, there are eight repayment plans available to students, 

and I join others in recommending one plan based on income, 

where delinquent borrowers could be automatically enrolled, payments would be a certain percentage of discretionary income with 

a forgiveness term, and a standard 10-year repayment plan of 

which 70 percent of student/parent borrowers are already in. These 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

changes wouldn’t eliminate loan defaults entirely, but simplifying 

repayment for students would certainly decrease default rates. 

Currently, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is being interpreted to prohibit student loan servicers and schools from using 

technology to make students aware of their repayment options via 

their cell phones, texts, and social media. That must change. 

Most are not aware that financial aid administrators are currently prohibited from requiring additional counseling and/or limiting borrowing for federal loans. Loans are considered to be entitlement dollars, and a school is not able to require additional counseling even if their records show that the student could be in serious financial trouble. 

An example: the transfer student that is able—about to borrow 

more than half of their undergraduate aggregate limit and has not 

yet completed an associate’s degree or 60 credit hours. We must 

provide financial literacy, additional counseling, and the availability of personalized services. 

Related, we urge Congress to amend the Higher Education Act 

to provide authority to institutions to limit annual and aggregate 

student loan levels to certain broad categories of non-protected 

classes of students to address over-borrowing. For example, many 

of us at low-cost institutions would want to be able to prorate loans 

for all part-time students. 

To further address the needs of nontraditional students, accelerated learning, and to reduce student borrowing, Congress should 

work to make Pell Grant more flexible by allowing students to access the Pell Grant year-round and authorize a ‘‘Pell-Well,’’ which 

would allow students to draw down funds as needed over 6 years 

of full-time equivalency. 

In closing, I believe that access, simplification, and accountability 

can coexist in our student aid programs. As a financial aid administrator, I have felt responsibility to my country, state, trustees, 

and most of all, the students and families we have served since the 

day we opened our doors. 

Let’s continue to work closely, ensuring that there is training, 

guidance, and the very best systems, programs, and experiences for 

our nation’s students and families. 

[The testimony of Mr. Bennett follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 93703.026
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 93703.027
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 93703.028
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 93703.029
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 93703.030
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 93703.031
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 93703.032
49 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Bennett. 

I now recognize Dr. Roe for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROE. Thank the chairman. And also, Chairman Foxx, I want 

to thank the members who offered me condolences and support 

during this very difficult time in my life and the passing of my wife 

last week. 

Governor Daniels, I want to welcome you. And the reason I can 

understand you is you spent the first 6 years of your life in 

Blountville, Tennessee, which is about 10 miles from where I live 

now, and that is why you have got so much common sense. I am 

sure that is the reason. You have a Tennessean by birth. 

Mr. DANIELS.—but we lived on the Blountville Highway. 

Mr. ROE. I know exactly where you lived. We are glad to have 

you back today. 

One of the things I want to address fairly quickly is I had the 

privilege of serving on two foundation boards of state colleges— 

Austin Peay, where I went to college; and East Tennessee State 

University, where I live now, in Johnson City, Tennessee. I have 

a huge commitment to the public education system. My father was 

a factory worker; my mother, who is still living, lives with me, 92 

years old, was a bank teller. 

I was able to go to college and medical school with a factoryworking father—I lived at home, worked—and graduate with no 

student loan debt. I think about that today. 

Now, look at the cost today, and our governor in Tennessee and 

our legislatures recognize, and we 100 percent agree with all your 

testimony, to be competitive it is going to require skills right now 

that we don’t have in Tennessee. So he proposed the Tennessee 

Promise, where any student who graduates from high school can go 

to community college for free in our state or to technical school. 

And we paid for that using our lottery money. 

And if you look in our state—and Governor Daniels, you are to 

be commended for freezing tuition. Higher education now has gotten to be outrageous. 

When my wife was in the hospital I had a chance to speak—and 

I taught at the medical school, but I had a chance to speak to several medical students who would come by. One student had graduated with a $290,000 debt. The average graduate of the University of Tennessee has over $22,000 in debt, which is a lot less, but 

in professional education it is becoming impossible. 

Young people making decisions about what kind of doctors they 

want to be not on what they want to be in their heart, but can they 

pay the loans back. That is very bad for the future of this country. 

So we are looking to you, as the thought leaders in education, to 

be able to help us. And I think the state level is where it starts; 

I don’t think it starts at the top down. 

And I have jotted just a few things down. I think Dr. Keller mentioned and Governor Daniels mentioned, where regulatory costs— 

you mentioned the Vanderbilt study I am familiar with. If you 

would sort of extrapolate on that a little bit, and what would you 

recommend to get rid of those so we can get rid of some of those 

costs for you all. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

Mr. Bennett, I could not agree more. I know you probably have 

seen students get into trouble. You mentioned several things that 

make absolute sense to me. 

A more flexible Pell Grant, again, makes sense. It makes sense 

to financially counsel a 19 or 20-year-old about what debt you are 

taking on. I mean, you don’t—when you are 19 or 20, if it is Monday, Friday is a long time. You are not thinking about ever being 

30 or, heavens forbid, my age. 

So I think those recommendations we need to do. By 2020, I 

heard the comment that 65 percent, for us to be competitive in the 

world, are going to need some form of education past high school. 

We believe that in our state, so I want to just mention those 

things. 

And I think, Mr. Bennett, you are also recommending—Senator 

Alexander has done the same thing—this questionnaire with hundreds of questions, ridiculous. We need to simplify that for you and 

the students. 

I will just stop and let you all—any one—Governor Daniels, you 

can start and, Dr. Keller, you can go ahead with the three things 

I—that you all recommended to us. 

Mr. DANIELS. Well, amen to all that, Congressman. And I will 

simply say that the—we can make a difference here. 

Debt among Purdue students is down 18 percent, which translates to $40 million. That is our undergraduate—current undergraduate population in the last couple years. 

Some of that is because the cost was contained, but a lot of that 

is because of counseling of the kind Mr. Bennett and others have 

spoken to here. It is awfully important, and being reminded that 

there are actually constraints on these very important conversations certainly points us to one important lever we have for shortterm improvement in the burden that these—too many of these 

young people do leave with. 

The FAFSA, which I have taken to carrying around because people don’t believe it when you talk to them about it, to show them. 

My suggestion about the FAFSA is not to start by asking, ‘‘What 

can we prune?’’ but ask the question, ‘‘What must we have?’’ If 

there are 110 now—I know there are at least two questions there 

we have to have, but I am not sure how many more than that there 

are, and it is very, very encouraging to hear members of both sides 

speaking as consistently as you have about these questions and 

others. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman Foxx. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I would like to ask Mr. Bergeron the first question, and that 

is the Pell Grants, as I understand it, many years ago paid about 

85 percent of the cost of attending a state college; now it is under 

a third. And further, no Pell—no summer Pells. Can you tell me 

the consequences to the low-income college-going rate with the 

trend in Pell Grants? 

Mr. BERGERON. So, thank you, Congressman Scott. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

You know, when we look at what happens to low-income students 

attending our public colleges, today, as a result of the Pell Grant 

not keeping up with the cost, there is a gap of about $7,000 in their 

aid budget that they need to fill. And often our low-income and 

middle-income students really don’t have the ability to do that. 

They can’t go out and find jobs to fill that gap. 

And so in the last several years, as we have seen college costs 

at public institutions increase as states have disinvested, we see 

the great progress we have made in getting more of our low and 

middle-income students to go into college beginning to slow. And so 

that is a troubling trend, given the data we see that suggests that 

more and more of our jobs are going to require some college education. 

And so we need to find a way to address that growing gap. Summer Pell, two Pells in an award year, is a way to begin to address 

that problem by encouraging our students to accelerate, but we 

honestly need to do a lot more for our low-income students if we 

expect them to go into college. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you say a word about the importance of the 

TRIO programs, especially Upward Bound? 

Mr. BERGERON. So I have to say this with a little bit of care. My 

wife has worked with the Federal TRIO programs for many years 

at the U.S. Department of Education, where we met— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, since we are doing full disclosure, when I was 

in college I was an Upward Bound counselor. 

Mr. BERGERON. You know, yes, I have to say that programs like 

Federal TRIO, particularly Upward Bound, have made a huge difference. The most significant impact I see in the Upward Bound 

program is the pushing our low and middle-income—low-income, 

first-generation students to immediately enroll in a 4-year college. 

When they get to a 4-year college they are much more likely to 

complete that 4-year experience and walk out the door with a degree with a minimal amount of debt because they are in institutions that are committed to their success. 

And so I think programs like TRIO are critically important. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

President Daniels, there has been some suggestion that cost of 

college has only gone up with inflation but the price that people 

have to pay has skyrocketed because the states are paying less of 

the total cost of the education. Can you make a—can you comment 

on that? 

Mr. DANIELS. Well, first of all, all the data I have ever seen 

shows that the cost of college has risen much, much faster than the 

cost of inflation. In fact, the only two items in the—in most indices 

that have risen faster than the cost of health care, which we are 

all very cognizant, are college tuition and college room and board. 

And a lot of factors have been driving that. The so-called amenities arms race. Colleges don’t look like they did 20 or even 10 

years ago. 

There has clearly been, however, as we discussed here, some upward cost pressure generated by the need to comply with federal 

rules that are complex, that are often redundant, and in many 

cases, on the receiving end, appear unnecessary. So, you know, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

there—a lot of criticism, I think rightfully, has been directed at the 

increase in administrative costs on campuses. I think it doesn’t— 

Mr. SCOTT. Several decades ago, it is my understanding that 

states were paying about two-thirds of the cost of the public education; now it is down to about one-third. 

Mr. DANIELS. Yes— 

Mr. SCOTT. That would account for about— 

Mr. DANIELS. And that has been a— 

Mr. SCOTT.—doubling the cost— 

Mr. DANIELS.—depending on the states. You know, the state I 

come from was third in the nation in maintaining its support for 

higher ed, but there are many other states where drastic cuts have 

occurred. 

I will say that, given the rising cost of tuition and other fees, it 

would have been very hard to keep up, in many states, to keep up 

with the per-student increase. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. DANIELS. Not excusing or defending— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if they are down to one-third and were paying 

two-thirds, that would, by itself, with no other increase, account for 

a doubling of the price of college. 

Mr. DANIELS. If that were the only factor that would be true, but 

it is only one among many. And I think the responsibility for the 

difficulty students are having now has to be shared. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. 

Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

It is interesting, I had some students in my office yesterday. The 

student government associations from the ACC schools are in town, 

and I have an ACC school, Louisville, in my state, and so I met 

with them yesterday and they came about costs of college. I have 

two kids in college and one on the way, so cost of college is something that myself and the parents I am around, because I am 

around parents my kids’ age, talk about quite a bit. 

And, you know, I know that the president talked about in the 

State of the Union, which was mentioned about making college— 

or community college free for the first 2 years, and he mentioned 

Tennessee. Well, Tennessee made choices. They made choices to 

use lottery revenues that they made. 

And also the president I think was going to change the 529s, 

which I will tell you there are a lot of people that incomes are too 

high to get a lot of financial help but not high enough to write 

$50,000 checks on an annual basis just out of income that need 

savings programs. So, you know, you are doing—states make 

choices. 

Kentucky chose to do their lottery money through scholarship to 

students; Georgia, the HOPE Scholarship, which was trying to 

make 4-year college free. I think they have had to walk back on 

some of that. I don’t know the details of it directly. 

But it gets to what Mr. Scott was saying, that states make 

choices. And, you know, Kentucky chose to expand Medicaid, and 

Medicaid that will have substantial impact on this year’s budget 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

because of what we think is a significant woodwork effect. It is not 

100 percent to 2 or 3 years in the future; it is real money now. 

I was in state government. Our first budget in 2000—first budget 

I was there in 2000 the biennium 2-year budget was $13 billion almost. Last year it was almost $19 billion. So we have gone up a 

little over—almost $6 billion and cut colleges. 

And then the students’ number one want to know what the federal government is going to do for affordability of college, and we 

all need to be in it together because it is expensive. But you can’t 

have states making those kind of decisions, choosing to spend state 

tax dollars elsewhere and then rely on the federal taxpayer to come 

in and solve it all. 

And it seems like we always look just a little north of the river, 

when you were governor, and now that my colleague, Mike Pence, 

is governor. So my question is, you said your room and board is 

down 10 percent and you have frozen tuition, you are investing, 

debt is down 40 percent, and from your experience as—from your 

state experience and now, how has the state budget interacted, how 

have you been able to do that when most schools across the country—so if one school can do it, why can’t others? 

Mr. DANIELS. Well, our university, again, is more fortunate than 

some, because state support, which it dipped slightly 1 year during 

the recession, has otherwise risen modestly and, compared to other 

states, has held up better than most. But I think you put your finger on the problem. 

I am referring back to my last job, really, here, but one reason 

in Indiana, for instance, education is a larger share of the state 

budget than in any other state in the union—about two-thirds of 

the entire state budget. More than 50 percent to K–12 and about 

12 or 13 percent to higher ed, last I looked. 

And the only reason that is possible is because choices were 

made. The Medicaid program did not explode and eat the rest of 

the budget, as it often has. Corrections have been carefully managed. And so it has left a little more room. 

But that has not prevented tuitions from rising very, very swiftly—faster than inflation. And I know it is driven in many cases by 

competitive pressures, trying to attract a different kind of student 

today. I know it is driven, as we have talked about here, in large 

part—one study has shown that a third of the increase in administrative jobs is related to federal compliance and—federal and state 

compliance, I should add, plays some role there. 

So a mix of factors, but I think that even as we are here asking 

that the committee and the Congress seize this opportunity to modernize the law, I think those of us in higher ed have to accept a 

significant amount of the responsibility to modernize our own practices. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, thank you. Did you have substantial—and 

universities in Kentucky have done a—not the University of Kentucky alone, universities in Kentucky have done a substantial job 

in raising outside resources, as well, which is something that I 

don’t think we did 20 to 30 years ago, focused on, at state universities, anyway, is raising financial outside contributions, so it is 

good. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

You also said if we—the $20 billion rules could—$20 billion 

worth of rules could educate 20,000 Hoosier students, I guess some 

Boilermakers, too? 

Mr. DANIELS. Well, that is right. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I know you are using that generic for Indianans, 

right? 

Mr. DANIELS. Well, yes, I meant—what I really meant was that 

at our in-state tuition is different than our out-state tuition. Our 

in-state tuition is just south of $10,000, so that is where I get a 

figure like 20,000 of our— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I think all of you and all of us want to make college more affordable in whatever role we have, but it is particularly 

at the state level, we need to make sure that our state policymakers don’t just look to us to bail out students. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. 

Congresswoman Adams? 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bergeron, you talked a bit about the important role HBCUs 

play in our higher education system. From my experience I know 

that those schools are well-equipped to support the unique needs 

of their students, and so as we look toward reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, I believe that we have to be more thoughtful 

about how we measure the success of these institutions. 

Research shows us that HBCU graduation rates compare favorably with other institutions when student level factors are taken 

into consideration. But our current success measures do not make 

special consideration of colleges and universities who primarily 

serve low-income, first-generation students who may not otherwise 

have attended a 4-year institution. 

So I wonder if you could share your thoughts on how we should 

account for the differences in student populations when we determine the success of our institutions of higher education and what 

we can do to highlight the successes that are taking place at 

HBCUs. 

Mr. BERGERON. So, thank you, Congresswoman Adams. 

I think one of the things that is really important for me is that 

historically black colleges enroll about 375,000 of our undergraduates today. That is an impressive number for that sector when you 

think about the relative size of those institutions. They tend to be 

smaller; they tend to be more of learning communities that support 

the best success of their students. 

And so one of the things that we know about them is that they 

are very intensive institutions, in terms of the education they provide. That is one of the reasons that they are successful. 

But they are institutions that enroll students who come from 

low-income and from disadvantaged backgrounds, and—who need 

extra support. And so the institutions are structured that way. 

You know, when I wrote about what does value look like in higher education about a year ago, one of the things I said there is that 

we need to give special consideration, special focus on institutions 

that provide access and are affordable, and that is exactly the type 

of institution that I am talking about. And we should assess them 

in relationship to other institutions that are like them. We 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

shouldn’t judge them against institutions that are well—that have 

tremendous resources and which enroll students who are less disadvantaged and less well-prepared. 

And so I have argued for assessing them within categories that 

are similar and serve similar types of students. My colleagues at 

the American Public Land-Grant University Association have been 

arguing for an input-adjusted metric. I am not vehemently opposed 

to such a metric. It troubles me a bit. 

We talk about it quite often. They are just my next door neighbors over on H Street, and so we have great opportunities to chat 

about this. But we do need to do something to take that into consideration, to make those comparable across different types of institutions and— 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you very much. I was one of those students, 

so I appreciate your comments. 

Mr. Bennett, I want to ask you a question about Parent PLUS 

loans, because they are an important part of our financial aid package for many of our students. Now, according to UNCF, United 

Negro College Fund, since 2011 HBCUs have lost over $155 million 

in federal support due to the restrictions on Parent PLUS loans, 

which I think now are a minus. 

But when the problem first surfaced in 2012, initially 400,000 

students across the country, including 28,000 at HBCUs, were rejected for these Parent PLUS loans that they had received in previous years. Parents should not take out excessive debt, but these 

loans have a low default rate compared to Stafford Loans, and the 

government really recoups almost all that they put in. 

In light of these factors, what do you believe we should do about 

it? Should we return to the pre-2011 Parent PLUS borrowing requirements that might help students? What are your thoughts? 

Mr. BENNETT. I think you explained it very well, that when those 

borrowing requirements changed a lot of people lost access to those 

loans. So at our institution we are relatively low-cost, so we do not 

do a large number of PLUS Loans. I wouldn’t want to give the 

wrong information; I don’t know if someone else could help me out 

on this. 

Ms. ADAMS. Do we have a second for someone else—Mr. 

Bergeron? 

Mr. BERGERON. So I was involved in Parent PLUS when I was 

at the department and very aware of the disruption that occurred. 

You know, the concern we have to have is that we don’t want parents to take on excessive debt, and so we need to be looking not 

just at their, you know, their credit history, but their ability to 

repay the amounts of money that they are borrowing and treat it 

much more like a traditional credit program. 

That, I think, would go a long way to address your concern. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. I am out of time. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. 

Ms. Stefanik, you are recognized for 5 minutes? 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

Thank you, to the panelists who are here today. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

This issue is near and dear to my heart for the obvious reasons. 

I think I have a few decades closer to college than some of my colleagues here. 

So I wanted to start off—that is not—wisdom. You have wisdom. 

I have innovation. 

I wanted to ask Governor Daniels about your efforts and your 

record of being able to freeze tuition by rethinking your budget. 

Can you describe some of the specific tactics that Purdue has employed to reduce costs and maintain that tuition freeze? And the 

follow up is, can those tactics be applied to other higher education 

institutions? 

Mr. DANIELS. Well, we don’t claim, first of all, to have done anything really dramatic yet. We think we have a lot more work ahead 

of us. 

But just to give you a few examples, many institutions—and ours 

is typical in this respect—have been very I would say balkanized, 

or the people say stovepiped. There are a whole lot of things being 

done in multiple places that can be done in one. 

A great example with a lot of zeroes attached is information technology, and as we consolidated and centralized that we not only 

saved a lot of money but we believe we are providing better service 

than ever, higher quality. No one had looked at our health care 

plan for a long time, and we were able to modernize that in a way 

that has reduced premiums for the vast majority of our faculty and 

staff, but also by introducing consumerism into the plan, has 

shown some above-projection savings so far in reducing utilization. 

But, you know, what I would say is that certainly on a campus 

like ours—let me just make this point. We are a land-grant university, proud member of the APLU. 

And we were put there by a predecessor Congress for two reasons. One was to teach the tools of a growing economy to more citizens; but the main goal was to throw open the gates of higher education beyond the wealthy, beyond the elites and the privileged. 

And we still feel that responsibility very acutely. 

And across our campus when we said, ‘‘Let’s try something different. Let’s try to break from this pattern of annual increases and 

see how we can manage,’’ we go tremendous buy-in. We opened 

hotlines and hundreds of staff suggested ideas large and small. 

Many people voluntarily decided to forego a pay increase. 

And so we have had, I think, a good collegial spirit about this. 

It is part of the ethic of who we are. 

But I would not over-claim at this point. We have managed some 

progress, but we are still not an inexpensive school to go to. We 

still worry about students—making sure that students at any income level who can meet our standards can come to Purdue. 

Ms. STEFANIK. I think there are a number of lessons that are 

learned from what you have been able to do even though it is a tuition freeze and we are not completely grasping the long-term challenges of college affordability. It is a model for other higher ed institutions across the country. 

And if I have a few more—do I have time for a follow up? 

Okay. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

I wanted to ask you about your flip-the-classroom efforts. And to 

me, that is a tool of a growing economy in rethinking how we deliver education. Can you expand on that? 

Mr. DANIELS. Sure. We didn’t innovate it, but we are trying to 

apply it as fast as we can and have been recognized for this. 

We are talking here about—it is really a spectrum of changes, 

but you used the term that we are—people do use, the ‘‘flipped 

classroom,’’ meaning that in one form the student will no longer attend lectures with hundreds of students all hearing the same 

things at the same time; that lecture will be available electronically 

to be viewed at a time and place that the student chooses, to be 

viewed over and over again if it didn’t—wasn’t understood the first 

time. Then the classroom time is spent testing understanding or 

perhaps working on projects to see if that learning can be applied. 

And we have data at Purdue, because we have done this in more 

courses than most places, that says it does work. We have data 

that says students warm to the learning experience more than the 

traditional mode. 

However, just to make this point, it is not—it is probably not less 

expensive to do. For instance, the square footage you need per student to operate this mode, as opposed to 400 people in one giant 

lecture hall, is greater. 

So it can be in tension with our affordability goals, but so be it. 

The real goal—we always say at Purdue, ‘‘Higher education at the 

highest proven value,’’ and the quality of the education is the numerator; cost, which we do pay a lot of attention to, is just half of 

that equation. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. 

Mr. Courtney, you are recognized. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And again, it is nice to see actually a group of witnesses from 

diverse backgrounds where there is some overlap, in terms of just 

the ideas that are being put forward, and that provides, I think, 

the committee with a lot of good, you know, foundation for hopefully a bill that is going to move forward this year. It is a couple 

years late and it is time to move. 

And, you know, FAFSA reform, financial counseling and education, year-round Pell Grants, again, that has been a recurring 

theme here today, and I want to thank all the witnesses for doing 

that. 

You know, one of the issues that I think Dr. Roe mentioned, or 

problems, and it is—we all hear it up here, and you do even more 

so, is the horror stories of high debt upon graduation—$290,000. 

What I think is frankly even more horrifying is when people are 

graduating with high debt and what you would I think almost call 

junk degrees, because the, you know, ability to convert that into 

gainful employment in many instances makes it just a trap that is 

going to be for a lifetime. 

And, you know, when we talk about the Department of Education’s Title 4 budget, which is about $150 billion a year, you 

know, we have got to come up with some systems here to make 

sure that at the front end of the system, when people are making 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

decisions, that they understand, you know, what is going to be 

there at the end of the process. And, you know, I realize that 

there—this is a tricky business, you know, it is a very diverse system of higher education. Connecticut, just like all the other states, 

has, again, you know, an outstanding array and can’t all be judged 

with a one-size-fits-all. 

But, you know, Mr. Bergeron, I mean, at some point this has got 

to be provided for kids, you know, when they are making a life decision that is the equivalent of buying a house if not more. And I 

just wonder if you could sort of, you know, respond to that. 

Mr. BERGERON. I think you are absolutely right. We are calling 

on our young people to make very complex decisions with very limited information about what is going to happen in the future, and 

it is really tough. 

My daughter graduated last May from Tulane University, and, 

you know, she was very fortunate. As I mentioned, my wife works 

for the Department of Education; I worked there for many years. 

I know more about higher education than most people in the country, and it was hard to guide her in her choice, especially because 

we don’t know a lot about what happens to students after they 

graduate—what are their earnings outcomes, you know, what is 

their success transferring to—going on to graduate school, medical 

school. 

And so we have got to develop the kinds of information, the 

kinds of data systems that support our understanding of those 

transitions, and to understand what happens afterwards, in terms 

of their entry into the world of work. 

When I was at the department I worked on gainful employment 

regulations—very controversial issue, something that has caused a 

lot of dissent around the country. But what we were trying to get 

at there, and what I think is critically important, is that we understand what the earnings are for our graduates. At a program level, 

at an institution level, we need to know that for profit colleges, the 

issue of—that we were dealing with then; but we need to know it 

more broadly so that students can make better-informed decisions. 

Mr. COURTNEY. And I just think it is something that, you know, 

my experience with the land-grant college in Connecticut, University of Connecticut, which sadly didn’t make it to the playoffs this 

year, the big dance, but, you know, they embraced the notion that 

they are going to be held accountable. And again, with the amount 

of money that is coming out of the U.S. Department of Education— 

and frankly, I think that is not an unreasonable requirement to put 

into place. 

The last thing I just want to sort of touch on is, again, Governor 

Daniels, your comments on page two regarding the sort of economic 

fallout of the high debt that 20, 30, and frankly, even older Americans are carrying is, again, a bigger issue even than their own predicament; it is hindering economic growth in this country. 

And that is why, frankly, I think we—I was looking at this morning’s 10-year treasury notes are 2.13 percent; 30-year mortgages, 

3.86 percent. There are a lot of people carrying even Stafford Loans 

at 6 and 8, you know, in terms of the PLUS, and we have got to 

come up with a system to refinance down. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

That is how we get through, you know, economic downturns in 

the, in terms of allowing middle-class families to refinance their 

houses. We have got to have a mechanism to bring down for all individuals, not just those covered by income-based repayment. 

And I just want to, again, be on record. We are going to be introducing a bill in a few days, which is going to basically allow that 

process to happen for both public and private student loans out 

there, which, again, I think will benefit the entire economy. 

And I was just reminded by my good friend from Colorado that 

the UConn women Huskies, however, will make sure our state is 

well-represented, and he just saved me from getting into a lot of 

trouble. So did my ranking member, who is watching my back. 

I yield back. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairwoman Foxx. I won’t touch that— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. Messer, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MESSER. Well, thank you, to the panel. 

And I think this is such an important conversation. You know, 

for most of the last several decades, from a federal policy perspective—and much longer, as the governor mentioned, from the—dating back to the beginnings of the land-grant institutions, our federal policy has focused on student access to higher education and 

not necessarily being very focused on student success. 

And, you know, for most of the last several decades that was 

okay because having some college meant that you were better off 

than no college at all, and every actuarial table that looked at it 

showed that. And that has changed now. 

In today’s economy if you don’t have a degree in a value-added 

subject matter that contributes to the economy you are not better 

off economically, and you could be worse off, if you are saddled with 

tens of thousands of dollars of student debt. And so I think we have 

to focus on not just access, which is important, but in delivering 

success for the students that are accessing the system. 

And from my days working with now President Daniels and 

former Governor Daniels, one of the keys, I believe, to that is 

metrics, measuring. You get what you measure in life. 

And so I was hoping that the governor could talk a little bit 

about the Gallup-Purdue Index and how it measures student success, exciting innovation, could you talk about that a little? 

Mr. DANIELS. We agree strongly with the point that Mr. 

Bergeron made and others have made that—and when I talked 

about higher education at the highest proven value, the point is 

that until fairly recently people were not studying or quantifying 

the outputs. Oh, we looked to see that college—we saw that college 

graduates tended to earn more money and so forth, but we didn’t 

know much more than that. 

And yes, we started out at Purdue simply looking for a way to 

measure more accurately the success of our graduates, which we 

suspect was high but couldn’t prove, and wound up in a project 

with Gallup, which led to the largest benchmark survey ever taken 

of college graduates, and there are a lot of interesting things we 

can all learn and will continue to learn from that—the idea then 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

being that schools that wanted to, like ours, could go out and parallel, contemporaneously, measure their own graduates. 

We were delighted to see that in every measure of well-being— 

it is not limited to financial—that Boilermakers were doing even 

better than the average college graduate. So thank you for leading 

the witness. 

But I will just say one other thing before switching off, that we 

pay a lot of attention to the metric of default rates because, as various members of the panel have said, the first question is how 

much is being borrowed; but the final question is, can the borrower 

successfully manage that financially in their life? And that goes a 

lot to the quality of the education and maybe the nature of the degree they got. And so that is the one we pay the most attention to. 

And the last point, I am sure well known to people here, but if 

you graduate from our school—you graduate from our school you 

have almost a 0 percent chance of defaulting; it is down around 1 

percent now. The problem that we have to watch is those who came 

to our school, as you were talking about Congressman, and did not 

finish. That is where a higher rate of default is, and that is where 

I think some of these real lifetime hardships are being experienced. 

Mr. MESSER. And, Governor, could you talk a little bit too—one 

of the ways to tackle student debt is in constructing programs 

where students don’t graduate in 5 years or 6 years, but potentially 

even in 3 years. 

Mr. DANIELS. The reason we are so interested in 3-year degrees 

is that not only can a student move through more quickly and 

affordably, but don’t underestimate the importance of one extra 

year in the workforce, earning money and compounding over a lifetime. It is a material factor, too. 

So yes, any changes that take obstacles out of the way or facilitate that, most welcome. 

Mr. MESSER. Great. 

I want to take a minute and ask—talk to Dr. Keller. I don’t 

have—not much time with the yellow light, but could you talk a 

little bit about—from, you know, your testimony you mentioned 

federal transparency efforts, trying to get better information to student consumers and how it can be so complex now it is difficult for 

students to wade through it. 

Ms. KELLER. Yes. I would say that we do need to take the time 

to think about what is out there and really what metrics are really 

important, and we have mentioned several of them today—success 

in progress, earnings after graduation, employment, enrollment in 

graduate school, amounts of debt. So let’s find out what those really important metrics are and take the time and effort to have those 

and deliver them to students when they need them rather than 

just putting them on a Web site and hoping that some will come 

and see them. 

Mr. MESSER. Yes. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. 

Mr. DeSaulnier? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nice job on the pronunciation. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

And I just want to thank all my colleagues and the witnesses. 

It is wonderful to be here, and this tone of a debate about something that is so important. 

So I have a couple questions, and I want to start, first of all, by 

saying as a member who is further removed from my memories of 

college than some of my colleagues, but having spent the weekend 

talking to my two sons, I guess that brings a more vivid perspective in another way. And I want to talk a little bit about not just 

the cost but the opportunities when people get out of college right 

now for a bachelor’s degree, having spent 45 minutes with one of 

my sons yesterday as he is looking for work 5 years removed from 

college. 

So first of all, the urgency, I think just the numbers are staggering, that around 37 million student loan borrowers with outstanding student loans in 2013; that $1.2 trillion with over 7 million debtors in default in 2014 student loan debt; the biggest 

growth in the program came in the past decade, as student debt 

rose an average of 14 percent a year, to $966 billion in 2012 from 

$364 billion in 2004; that as of the first quarter in 2012 the average student loan balance for all age groups was almost $25,000; 

and that student loan debt is growing by $3 per second right now 

in this country. So the urgency of what we have in front of us and 

the cooperative spirit I am hearing in terms of the importance of 

doing something that creates more flexibility and more opportunity. 

Mr. Bergeron, I—in my lifetime I have been fortunate enough to 

own and manage businesses in both Palo Alto and Berkeley, coming from Northern California, and it always struck me doing that 

is the interconnectivity between the economy on a retail level, that 

the governor has talked about, and higher education. 

So it strikes me we have the idea of introducing a bill that would 

actually tie the prime rate to student loans, so I wonder if you have 

any comments about your idea of ‘‘college for all,’’ if that would be 

helpful. 

Mr. BERGERON. When we think about student loan debt and its 

impact on the economy, you know, the ability of people to—who 

have student loans to buy houses, buy cars, start new businesses, 

which is a critical driver of our economy, you begin to realize that 

it is really important that we stem the increase. So first of all, we 

need to find ways to reduce the cost of higher education, the kinds 

of things that we have been talking about, to slow that. 

But then we also have to deal with that $1.2 trillion, $1.3 trillion 

in student loan debt outstanding. So the kinds of things we need 

to be thinking about are, you know, trying to figure out strategies 

to refinance that debt, lower the interest rate on that debt so that 

it is more manageable for students and families. 

Really important that we find ways to provide for greater range 

of repayment options even in the private loan programs. Things 

like income-based repayment that exist within the federal student 

loan system really don’t exist within the private student loan market, and a lot of the concerns with the really high loan balances 

are people with a mix of federal and private loans, so we need to 

address that. 

And then to your point, we need to really think seriously about 

what to do about interest rates. When you use income-based repayCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

ment plans you—each borrower ultimately gets a personalized interest rate that they can then figure out when graduate when they 

last pay off that loan. 

But it is really, you know, frightening to people to see that balance grow month to month, and so we really have to slow that increase by doing something about interest rates. Clearly the federal 

government can borrow at very low rates. Somebody mentioned the 

T-bill rate at 2.1, and there is no reason for us to be charging borrowers so much more than that in today’s economy. We need to 

really bring that down. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. And then just a second general comment, if I 

could start with the governor. 

So we have meetings in my district with both students who go 

to a private school in the district of St. Mary’s of California and go 

to the University of California, Berkeley, that is just outside of the 

district. The two telling things is all these kids do the right thing. 

In 2008 I remember these compelling stories about, ‘‘I got a 4.0 

in high school; I did extracurriculars. I always thought I would 

have a place in school. Without a Pell Grant or a Cal Grant I would 

not be able to be here. One of my parents lost their job in the recession.’’ 

So there is that part, and then the second part is the issue that 

I was dealing with my son is you get out of college and, unlike our 

generation, the likelihood of making a livable wage is pretty removed. 

So, Governor, just briefly, if you could respond to those two 

things? 

Mr. DANIELS. Well, I don’t know what to add, really, to what has 

been said. I think that the—it should trouble us all that—for a variety of reasons, and I think that the one we are here—gathered 

about here today is a big one, but not nearly the entire story. 

We do have a mismatch in the country, and the structural 

changes in the economy seem to me to be widening it, between the 

jobs the economy is calling for and the—at least in numbers that 

it would take to maintain a large middle class. 

And, you know, our answer, as just one institution, has been— 

we are making strategic investments. We are already one of the 

most STEM-centric, so to say, universities in the country, up there 

in a category with some of your great schools in your state. We are 

investing more heavily in that. We think it is consistent with our 

land-grant assignment originally—in the antique language, agriculture and the mechanic arts. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Governor? 

Mr. DANIELS. The mechanic arts have come a long way, but this 

is really where the economy, we think, is based these days. 

We are making a lot of investments in—to get larger there and 

to train more people— 

Chairwoman Foxx. Governor? 

Mr. DANIELS.—from our state or elsewhere. That is our contribution and we know it is only a partial answer. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. 

Mr. Allen? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Ms. Chairman. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

And I come from the 12th District of Georgia and we have got 

some very fine higher education institutions there. Very proud of 

those folks that they serve. 

I have been in the business world all of my life, and what intrigues me is—well, I—really two things. One is the fact Dr. Brooks 

Keel, at Georgia Southern University, testified before this committee last year about worker readiness, and for the—you know, 

for the 21st century. 

But what I did when I went to school—and of course, you know, 

every mom and dad has told their children this story—well, I 

worked my way through college. Is that out of style now? I mean, 

one of the things that we looked at when we hire people is work 

experience, and really, it is more real-world work experience. 

For example, I worked in a steel fabricating facility as a welder, 

and, frankly, was well paid for that and was able to work two 

shifts, and I loved to work. And it, of course, taught you the value 

of hard work, made you study hard, and all that kind of stuff. 

But, you know, I hear about these student loans and the massive 

debt that we are building here, and then I also hear about these 

statistics of young people who are either unemployed or underemployed and really, at this stage, don’t really know what they 

want to do. 

I was fortunate in that work placed me a position that I said, 

‘‘Hey, this is my sweet spot; this is what I want to do,’’ and was 

able, then, to go on and get an education and into—start a business. 

So is there any possibility that we are going about this thing the 

wrong way? In other words, should we promote—I know I looked 

at co-oping at one time because I wanted to get as much work experience. And I will tell you, when we look at resumes of college graduates, that work experience counts a lot when we are going to hire 

a new graduate. 

So, Governor, would you care to comment on that? 

Mr. DANIELS. Thanks. Well, first of all, I—high percentages of 

our students are working while they are in school; I don’t think we 

are unusual in that respect. 

Second, while the co-op type experience has a long history at 

Purdue, it lends itself, I think, especially well to a school like ours, 

but we are acting to expand it as rapidly as we can. And you are 

quite correct—back to this Gallup-Purdue Index, one of the most— 

clearest findings was that those college graduates who had some 

such work experience—internship if not a full co-op type experience—while in school were doing substantially better than those 

who had not had that opportunity. 

So we know it works, and we are working hard to expand it. We 

have a number of companies that you have all heard of locating facilities on our around our campus and hiring our students to do 

real work, paying them rather well—better than we can to work in 

our cafeterias. But we can’t do enough of this fast enough. 

Now, I will say that the run-up in costs—college costs—has probably outstripped the ability of most students, no matter what kind 

of job they are able to secure, to defray as much of their college 

cost as you did or I did or people earlier on were able to do. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

Mr. ALLEN. As far as the business community, is there—do we 

have the business community plugged into our colleges the way 

they should be plugged into the colleges? 

Dr. Keller, or any member of the panel who would like to take 

that question? 

Ms. KELLER. I know that one strong focus of a part of APLU is 

exactly that, is to provide a forum and an opportunity for our presidents to meet with the presidents of business, because that helps 

on several different fronts. 

One is back to the workforce readiness. What are the skills that 

employers need and how do you find that out? By having conversations with people. Also, finding out ideas about affordability and 

processes and new models that we can take to the businesses. 

So definitely. That is a very strong priority for us at APLU. 

Mr. ALLEN. Any other comments? 

Mr. BENNETT. We have 10 campuses throughout our county and 

work very closely with business— 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. 

Mr. BENNETT.—identifying their need and looking short-term 

programs to get our students through and working. 

Mr. ALLEN. Because there are needs out there, and I believe my 

time is up, Ms. Chairman. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Your time is up. 

Mr. Polis, you are recognized. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

This first question is for Mr. Daniels. 

Western Governors University has a strong presence in Indiana, 

strong presence in my State of Colorado as well. And as you know, 

Western Governors operates on a different model from many other 

universities, a model that includes competency-based education, 

where students advance based on how much they know, not how 

much time they spend in a classroom. 

I would like you to address your own experience with Western 

Governors as well as how competency-based education can reduce 

costs and improve the quality of curricular delivery. 

Mr. DANIELS. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I was drawn into 

WGU initially as a board member, became very much an admirer 

of its system, and particularly the niche it fills. 

We brought it to Indiana. I would call it a private label operation, called it WGU Indiana, and it grew very rapidly, and I know 

for a period of time represented something like a third of all the 

growth in the entire WGU system. 

Why? Because it really addressed an unmet need. The average 

student is 36 years old, more likely to be female and minority than 

the rest of our population, juggling family and work and other 

things, and able to study at his or her own rate, and with proven 

success, including measurement of post-graduation employment 

and how well they are doing. 

So I was proud of that association and have watched their continued growth and really with interest, and it really was where I 

was first exposed to the—both the advantages and the efficacy of 

competency-based education, which we are now trying to introduce 

in a more traditional context of Purdue. 

Mr. POLIS. And I want to go to Mr. Bergeron with regard to that. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

If you could talk about how we can learn from Western Governors and how competency-based education could work for other 

universities to help reduce costs? 

Mr. BERGERON. Thank you, Congressman. 

So competency-based is a really—a dramatic game-changer innovation, in my view, in higher education. You know, the adoption by 

Purdue and the University of Southern New Hampshire and so 

many other institutions of that approach really is critical. 

And as we go forward and think about reauthorizing the Higher 

Education Act we really need to think about ways to move the conversation from the one where we have been stuck at, which is 

around what does the credit hour mean, to really what do we really 

expect our students to know and to be able to do when they graduate, and find ways to measure that as they progress. 

And if we can do that and effectively refocus our financial aid 

system on that, I think we will have a much more productive higher education system, and students, candidly, coming out with a lot 

less debt because they haven’t wasted time studying things that 

aren’t really helpful to their long-term goals and to their long-term 

development. 

Mr. POLIS. Another cost-reducing innovation are open textbooks. 

As we have heard, not only do college costs continue to rise, but 

so do textbook costs. After somehow coming up with the tuition, all 

of a sudden a student is hit with another $500 or $800 a semester 

to pay for textbooks. 

I want to address this first to Mr. Bergeron and then anybody 

else, how we could look at a policy that encourages open textbooks, 

where textbooks are openly licensed and free to students and faculty, and how that might help save money for students as well. 

Mr. BERGERON. So one of the things that exists in the federal aid 

system is the—this notion of cost of attendance, which includes 

books and supplies and other expenses. But that is on the student 

budget side. 

You know, we could think about changing the priorities so that, 

you know, it is more embedded in what institutions receive, in 

terms of payments, so that they are not passing those costs on to 

students, as consumers. I think that would dramatically change the 

economics of the textbook industry in a positive way in making 

textbooks more affordable to all students. 

Mr. POLIS. It is fair to point out that the beneficiaries of the current economics of textbooks are not the people who write those 

textbooks, and in many cases, any compensation is nominal if it exists at all. And there would be, I think, widespread cooperation 

among those who write textbooks to do so in an open source manner, which can equally enhance their prestige just as a proprietary 

textbook can. 

And I want to encourage the committee to look at additional 

ways that we can encourage open source textbooks to reduce the 

cost of textbooks in higher education. 

And I yield back. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Curbelo? 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

Governor Daniels, thank you for your testimony, and I thank all 

the other witnesses, as well. 

I am a major proponent of accountability in education. I have 

been a witness to the positive effects of the modern day accountability and education reform movement as a school board member 

in Miami-Dade County, where I served for 4 years. In fact, I credit 

the modern day education reform movement with saving our public 

schools from mediocrity and, in some cases, failure. 

I have been following your proposal and your project at Purdue 

to implement the Collegiate Learning Assessment Plus, and I 

wanted to get your thoughts on that, because I have shared this 

concept with some friends in higher education. Some have been 

open to it; others say that a standardized test for higher ed is going 

to result in standardized colleges and universities; and some other 

criticisms are that each university is unique and offers a unique 

product, and that this type of accountability would, in fact, degrade 

the purpose of a college education. 

So I was looking forward to getting some of your thoughts on 

that. 

Mr. DANIELS. Just as we thought that one aspect of proving the 

value of our educational product was to measure more rigorously 

the success of our graduates’ year 5 and 10 and more years out, 

we also believe that the second aspect of that is to measure the 

growth on campus—intellectual growth of students while on our 

campus. This is not new, and in this respect, we are following the 

lead of many other colleges who are working on it. 

It is not simple. There will be no perfect instrument. But over 

and over, I think, across the spectrum of education we have seen 

people resist accountability suggestions on the basis that they are 

not ideal and they are not perfect, and so we can’t let it be the 

enemy of the good. 

I don’t know if the CLA Plus is the best single instrument out 

there at the moment. It only purports, of course, to measure overall 

critical learning, not any specific disciplinary progress that a student may have made. So it ought not lead to any homogenization. 

There is no reason for that. I don’t know how it could be used to 

do that. 

But we are working with faculty experts at our campus. We are 

going to move forward, I do believe, in measuring student growth. 

It may well include, at least as a first project, the use of that instrument, but we will be looking at all ways in which we should 

do it. 

We simply embrace the responsibility to demonstrate that for 

this still expensive cost, a student really progresses at our school 

and leaves much better prepared for life and citizenship than they 

would otherwise have been. 

Everything we know about Boilermakers tells us that. GallupPurdue told us part of that, and now we accept the responsibility 

to find some way to say the same thing about the on-campus years. 

Mr. CURBELO. As you pointed out in your testimony, a lot of 

young people are increasingly asking the question: What is the true 

value of a college degree? What is the purpose of going to college? 

Do you think that, as policymakers, encouraging the use of these 

types of instruments can help answer that question for young peoCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

ple—what can you get out of a 2-year degree, out of a 4-year degree? How will it help you become more qualified for the jobs and 

the opportunities of this century? 

Mr. DANIELS. I do. I think it is a legitimate question for people 

to ask. It may be that not every institution everywhere can produce 

the proof, but I think it is fair to ask that we do so. 

I want to go back to something that came up in the previous 

question about—was—are businesses plugged into schools. I think 

they are extremely interested in seeing more job-ready, life-ready 

graduates. 

I am worried about businesses unplugging, in the sense that 

they—at some stage they may say, ‘‘Since we can’t trust the value 

of these diplomas young people are showing up with, we are going 

to go find our own way to certify readiness, our own measurements. 

And if you can pass that, we will be less interested in how many 

years you spent in a traditional college setting.’’ 

That would be a real danger, and we ought to beat the marketplace to that before it reaches such a conclusion. 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Davis, you are recognized. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, to all of you, for being here. I wasn’t able to be here 

for the earlier remarks, but I hope I won’t ask too many of the 

same questions. 

Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Bennett, we recently had one of our many 

workshops for students and for families on FAFSA, and I know you 

were talking about that earlier. As you have looked at that over the 

years, have you created your own? Have you tried to—what is the 

big challenge in trying to simplify this? Because that is really what 

families are asking for, and you may have addressed this earlier. 

What do you think? I mean, why is it that we can’t move forward 

with this? 

Mr. BENNETT. I think that Governor Daniels, when he mentioned 

he carries the financial aid application with him, I do too. It is the 

number of questions, and currently we are not using all the data 

systems that are available to us to make that experience simpler 

for families. 

In addition to simplification of the form, if we go back to prior 

year and we have the completed tax return, everything becomes 

much better—much simpler for families, increases access, and that 

is what we should be focused on. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Have you picked up a political challenge here somewhere that we are not able to break through? I know the Senate 

is interested in this, as well. 

Mr. BERGERON. So if I might, I think the primary challenge 

today to moving to prior year, or even, in our proposal, telling families what federal aid they would be eligible for when their son or 

daughter is entering high school is really a question of costs. The 

reason it is difficult to move to prior year is that it will increase 

the cost of the Pell Grant program. It potentially could change the 

cost of the student loan system. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

And I think that fear of those costs are what keep us from moving forward. But I think there is tremendous unanimity of opinion 

that we need to be moving in that direction. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

If I could just turn to you, Governor Daniels, you have such a 

unique perspective in many ways, being president of the university 

now and having— 

Mr. DANIELS. You mean because I know less than all these? Yes. 

You are right. 

Mrs. DAVIS.—having been governor. So I just—I wanted to ask 

you whether—do you—from where you sit today, would you do 

things differently as governor in seeking what many governors 

have to do—cuts to higher education and really impacting the local 

situation? 

Mr. DANIELS. You know, the thing I wish I had done better is 

been more successful. We made a huge effort to infuse more dollars 

into higher education. It also involved our—would have involved 

our lottery, although in a different fashion than was done in Tennessee and was mentioned in Kentucky. I wasn’t successful in persuading enough people to go that route, and I wish somehow that 

I had been. 

You know, the second time we tried it, by the way, was—looked 

a lot like the president’s proposal, a lot like the Tennessee proposal 

that is out there now. We were going to, in essence, create an endowment to enable, on a means-tested basis, low-income students 

to attend community college or take the same dollars to another 

state school. 

You know, it is—if I can just observe, it is fun to sit here under 

the portrait of George Miller. Another errand I have here in town 

tomorrow is—he and I co-chaired the Aspen Institute’s annual competition, and tomorrow we will be naming the best community college in the country. 

This is really important. A lot of innovation is going on and must 

go on at that level, and— 

Mrs. DAVIS. I would agree. I think— 

Mr. DANIELS.—we will be—yes, we will be celebrating that, and 

I would associate with those who, in different ways, are trying to 

make it possible for more students to at least start their postsecondary careers there. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. Could you comment also, though, on K–12? Because we know that if students are well prepared they are going 

to do better in school, that is going to mean that they graduate 

quicker, as well. 

And if I could just tag on, you have been successful, I believe, 

in trying to do—have some more visibility around sexual assault at 

the university. What do you recommend? We obviously are very 

concerned about having advocates there for victims. 

Mr. DANIELS. Sure. Well, first of all, in K–12, yes, this is the undeniable truth. I remember at the very first meeting that I convened of all of the—this is my last job—of the Indiana public university presidents and I asked, ‘‘What can the state do?’’ they started with that, ‘‘Please send us more people who are—young people 

who are ready for college.’’ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

We are still struggling. Now, Indiana was second to Tennessee 

in the most recent years of improvement in K–12 performance, so, 

you know, the needle can move, but it is got a long way to go. 

And another reason community colleges are so important is we 

still have too many people who get what we call a high school diploma who need remediation in basic reading and math. We have 

given that assignment in our state to the community colleges. It is 

a huge and important burden that they have, and another reason 

we have to boost them. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. All right. 

My time is up. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. 

It is now my turn, I think, to ask some questions. I always wait 

till the end so my colleagues who want to go away can go away if 

they need to. 

I need to probably give some disclosure also on the issue of TRIO 

programs. I began an Upward Bound program at Appalachian 

State University and wrote the grant to get a special services program there, and was at Appalachian when Appalachian was doing 

so many innovative things. 

This was back in the 1970s. We were doing dual enrollment with 

high school students and getting college credit; we did Upward 

Bound; we did special services. There were just all kinds of programs. I thought we were going to catch on a long time ago in 

higher education and haven’t, frankly. I have been a little surprised at that. 

And I have said here a couple of times, in 1962 I took a course 

on TV when I was living with my grandparents in New York City— 

got up early every morning, took a course on TV. I didn’t try and 

take it for credit. I thought, again, that was going to bloom in higher education. Has not. 

I have, again, been waiting for all these innovations to come 

along. I was out there when they were happening. 

And God is giving me good lessons. My grandson is a senior in 

high school this year and he is struggling with the Common Application form and the FAFSA. His mother is pulling out her hair trying to do all this. 

So despite what Congresswoman Stefanik said, some of us are a 

little more familiar with what is going on today in higher education 

than she might think. 

So, but I am wanting to ask a couple of questions. 

Dr. Keller, you have talked a little bit about how our measures 

for success—what we get from the department now are so narrow. 

Talk a little bit about what type of students the metric through the 

Student Achievement Measure would give us that we are not able 

to capture now, and a little bit more about why this would be significant. 

Ms. KELLER. Absolutely. Thank you, Chairman Foxx. 

The Student Achievement Measure, in fact, would cover all of the 

students who are enrolled within higher education and seeking a 

degree or certificate. So that would include part-time students; that 

would include students who are transfer students to a particular 

institution; that would include full-time students, and the full-time 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

first-time students. So with the Student Achievement Measure you 

have the ability to track the outcomes of all of those students. 

And we think this is very, very significant. A couple of data 

points to illustrate: Over half of the bachelor’s degree recipients attend more than one institution before they graduate. Only about 30 

percent of students enrolled in postsecondary education fit the traditional student model. 

We believe it is so important, if we want to hold institutions accountable, to have good measures. If we want to provide good and 

clear information for students to make informed decisions, we need 

to be using the right measures in order to do so. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bennett, what—I don’t know if your organization has done 

this or not, and I apologize—what income and asset questions 

should remain or be added to the FAFSA? You have talked about 

the year before the year prior, but what do we want to do to make 

sure that the neediest students get the grants that they need? How 

can we guarantee that? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I think we guarantee that by knowing that 

you can’t just go down to two questions. And, as Governor Daniels 

said, I think you start off with talented people in the room and go 

through the exercise of, what do we need in terms of both income 

and assets to measure a family’s financial strength, and then try 

to use the existing systems, like IRS Data, and have that automatically happen, versus families having to complete 108 questions. 

I think we can use our federal and state systems much more efficiently to make that experience for students and families easier to 

apply for this process. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Well, we certainly hear this complaint, as 

other people have said, from absolutely everybody who speaks. And 

shame on us if we can’t do something to fix that. 

Thank you very much. 

I would now like to recognize Congresswoman Adams for any 

closing remarks she would like to make? 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

I would also like to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony 

and for your thoughtful responses. 

Since the last time the Higher Education Act was reauthorized 

in 2008 there have been a lot of changes. College enrollment has 

steadily increased, but so have the related costs of going to school. 

I believe that higher education should be accessible to everyone 

regardless of their race, their ethnicity, their religion, or any other 

factors that make us unique. But in order to be accessible, it must 

be affordable. 

So if we don’t address the costs of higher education, it will surely 

hurt our economy. As many of you have said, more employers are 

seeking employees with some form of postsecondary education. 

It will also continue to saddle students with enormous amounts 

of student loan debt that prevent them from participating in other 

parts of our economy. I have a daughter who went to school in 

Greensboro, and I wanted her to get a good education so she could 

leave home and take care of herself, and I am sure that we want 

that for our children so that they can be productive citizens. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

71 

But we must ensure that we are equipping institutions, like our 

HBCUs, with the tools and the resources necessary to serve the 

unique needs of their student populations and not penalize them 

for serving these students, nor should we penalize students because 

of their parents. 

Now, increasing federal investments in successful college readiness programs like TRIO, like GEAR UP, can help increase college 

participation and improve student success. 

We have a higher education system that is envied around the 

world and we should be proud of that. However, we have to continue making strategic investments or we will begin to see our 

international counterparts outpace, as they have done in primary 

and secondary education. 

Now, I think that we have had a pretty good, thorough, and 

healthy discussion today. I am pleased that we have had that and 

I hope that we can continue this conversation in future hearings. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to get deeper into 

these issues so that we can come together and reauthorize Higher 

Education Act in a bipartisan manner. 

And, Madam Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank our witnesses again for being here today. You 

have been—provided us lots of food for thought. 

I want to make a couple of comments on some of the things you 

have said and then add a few points. 

I think, Governor Daniels, I was impressed with what you said 

about your coming into your office with the mentality of saving. I 

think in too much of higher education, as you pointed out, the rate 

of increase for tuition and fees has gone up much higher than the 

rate of inflation in our country. 

And I think over the years there has been a mentality in higher 

education that is that we are doing the Lord’s work, therefore, we 

should get all the money that we want—not that we need, but that 

we want. And I really think that part of what needs to happen is 

that there be a different mentality in higher education in terms of, 

I think, setting—being good role models for all of us and our country. 

And so I think coming in with a strong ethic about providing 

what it is we have traditionally thought higher education should 

be providing. Do you need climbing walls to do that? I am not 

sure—or all those things that you have talked about that have 

added to the cost. 

I think that is part of the basis of what our institutions have to 

do, and I think the legislators are more and more looking at that, 

and I hope more and more governors are going to be looking at 

that. 

You mentioned that in your research you found that those who 

work part time do better both in school and when they graduate. 

We have known that for 100 years in this country. We have known 

that people who work 15 hours a week while they are in college do 

better academically and have a much better chance of getting a job. 

Why do we ignore the research? We continue to do research, we 

continue to do—you know, over and over and over again, to prove 

what we have known for a long, long time. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

I contend higher education is the only institution in this country 

that has not changed in 150 years. We are still operating on the 

agrarian model. 

You know, started out a few months, we got up to 9 months. So 

we still take the summers off for people to go home, work on the 

farm. That just isn’t happening anymore. So going to year-round 

programs is, I think, so important. 

Talking about doing the flipped classrooms is so important, I 

think, where students—if completion is our issue it seems to me we 

ought to do all we can to help them get the information that they 

need. 

I am very keen on this issue of telling students what obligation 

they are taking on when they borrow money—parents and students. So, you know, we blame the system, but I think if we have 

students have a piece of paper, you ask them to read it in front of 

you, you ask them to sign it, there is an obligation there that those 

students and those parents are taking on. 

We bemoan the fact that there is a large default rate, but if we 

don’t expect a sense of responsibility on the part of people then we 

have a problem. And we should be telling people, I think, that they 

don’t need all that money that they—that is approved for them, 

and explain to them what their obligation is. 

And, Mr. Bergeron, I am really impressed to hear you say that 

after your work on gainful employment in the department that you 

think that should be applied to everyone. I think that is a monumental statement that you said today, and I have long felt that is 

the way we should do it. It brings us right back to our accountability issues. 

And I think what the governor said—I have agreed with him for 

a long time on the issue of pretty soon business and industry is 

going to say, ‘‘You are not doing the job that we want you to do, 

Higher Education. We are going to do an alternative.’’ Many of 

them already are doing that. 

But I think higher education has to look within itself to look for 

the ways to heal itself and ask the federal government and state 

governments to be partners with them, but not to look to the federal government for all the solutions, because I think many of the 

solutions lie within the institutions themselves. 

So I am very grateful to all of you for being here today and presenting alternatives to the way things are being done now, and always, always with the focus that we—the taxpayers and the students and the parents deserve better of us. And I believe we have 

a moral obligation to show what we should be doing and not just 

to talk about it. 

So I hope as we develop the reauthorization for the Higher Education Act that we will be role models and that we can count on 

your support as we implement the recommendations that you 

made. 

There being no further business, the hearing is adjourned, and 

I have no gavel so— 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Daniels follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 93703.037
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 93703.038
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 93703.039
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 93703.040
77 

[Additional submission by Chairman Kline follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 93703.033
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 93703.034
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 93703.035
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 93703.036
82 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Polis follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 93703.041
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 93703.042
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 93703.043
86 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER