House subcommittee hears sharply divided views on HR 1 and college affordability

WASHINGTON — Members of the House Education and Workforce subcommittee convened a hearing focused on rising college costs and the effects of the Working Families Tax Cut (referred to in the hearing as HR 1), hearing sharply different views from economists, state higher‑education leaders, and policy advocates.

Dr. Beth Akers, introduced to the record as a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told lawmakers that “higher education still pays off on average, but outcomes vary enormously across programs,” and urged Congress to press institutions for better price and outcome information so students can make informed enrollment decisions.

Dr. Julie Marguerita Morgan, president of The Century Foundation, warned that recent federal policy choices have left many borrowers vulnerable. She said total federal student loan debt “stands at nearly $1,700,000,000,000, with the average federal student loan burden just under $40,000,” and argued the changes in HR 1 — including limits on income‑driven repayment options — will “exacerbate the risk of default.”

Witnesses and Democrats on the panel framed the problem as long‑term public disinvestment. Ranking Member Adams said reduced state and federal appropriations have shifted costs onto students and families, and that “cutting staff does not make college more affordable — it makes it harder for students to stay enrolled and finish their degrees.” Dr. Morgan and others linked basic‑needs insecurity (housing, food, childcare) to declining college persistence and completion.

Republican members and witnesses described a different diagnosis. Participants who favored the reforms, including the Utah and Florida system leaders, said restoring market incentives and holding programs accountable for outcomes would curb unwarranted price growth. Jeffrey Lan Landward, the witness representing Utah’s system of higher education, described Utah’s reforms — public hearings for tuition increases, a system redesign emphasizing shared services and program consolidation, and a $60,000,000 strategic reinvestment away from low‑value programs — and said those steps helped make Utah’s tuition among the lowest nationally.

Florida’s chancellor, Raymond Rodriguez, defended performance based funding and reported that Florida resident undergraduate tuition and fees “have been frozen since 2013” and that the state’s system now reports higher graduation and employment metrics, which he argued persuaded state leaders to continue investing.

Members focused repeated questioning on three fault lines: whether administrative bloat is a primary driver of rising tuition, whether caps on graduate borrowing will impede access to professional degrees, and whether HR 1’s repayment changes will push borrowers into private, less‑protections loans. Dr. Akers and Dr. Morgan both endorsed stronger transparency and price metrics tied to federal aid; Dr. Akers described tying loan access to program outcomes as a recent, important innovation, while Dr. Morgan cautioned that replacing broad income‑driven repayment options would raise delinquency and default risks for many borrowers.

No formal votes or committee actions were taken at the hearing. Members entered reports, studies, and letters into the hearing record at various points and pressed administration and disclosure reforms as immediate policy options. The subcommittee adjourned after closing remarks in which Democrats emphasized reinvestment to preserve college as a public good and Republicans reiterated the need for competition, accountability, and market‑oriented reforms.