[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] TAX INCENTIVES FOR POST SECONDARY EDUCATION ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES of the COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ MAY 1, 2008 __________ Serial No. 110-80 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62-697 WASHINGTON : 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman FORTNEY PETE STARK, California JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan WALLY HERGER, California JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington DAVE CAMP, Michigan JOHN LEWIS, Georgia JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts SAM JOHNSON, Texas MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JERRY WELLER, Illinois XAVIER BECERRA, California KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas RON LEWIS, Kentucky EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KEVIN BRADY, Texas STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York MIKE THOMPSON, California PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut ERIC CANTOR, Virginia RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois JOHN LINDER, Georgia EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon DEVIN NUNES, California RON KIND, Wisconsin PAT TIBERI, Ohio BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey JON PORTER, Nevada SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland KENDRICK MEEK, Florida ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama Janice Mays, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Jon Traub, Minority Staff Director ______ SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts, Chairman LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania MIKE THOMPSON, California THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut ERIC CANTOR, Virginia ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania JOHN LINDER, Georgia JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also, published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process is further refined. C O N T E N T S __________ Page Advisory of April 24, 2008 announcing the hearing................ 2 WITNESSES Michael Brostek, Director, Tax Issues, Strategic Issues Team, United States Government Accountability Office................. 7 Karen Gilbreath Sowell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, United States Treasury Department...................... 55 Debra M. Townsley, President, Nichols College, Dudley, Massachusetts.................................................. 84 Wayne Watson Ph.D., Chancellor, City Colleges of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.............................................. 89 Susan Dynarski, Associate Professor, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, Massachusetts....................................... 100 Dan Ebersole, Director, Georgia Office of Treasury and Fiscal Services, Atlanta, Georgia..................................... 113 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Paul J. LeBlanc, Statement....................................... 133 B. Russell Lockridge, Statement.................................. 134 Dr. Shirley Robinson Pippins, Statement.......................... 134 Experience Wave and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, Statement............................................ 135 Joseph B. Moore, Statement....................................... 139 Reid Cramer, Statement........................................... 139 Robert Shireman, Statement....................................... 143 TAX INCENTIVES FOR POST SECONDARY EDUCATION ---------- THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Richard E. Neal [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. HEARING ADVISORY FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS Neal Announces Hearing on Education Tax Incentives April 24, 2008 By (202) 225-5522 House Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) announced today that the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures will hold a hearing on tax incentives for postsecondary education. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 1, 2008, in the main Committee hearing room, 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Oral testimony at this hearing will be limited to invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. FOCUS OF THE HEARING: The hearing will focus on various tax benefits currently provided for postsecondary education. The Internal Revenue Code currently provides several tax benefits designed to encourage the pursuit of, and assist in the payment for, educational studies beyond the secondary level. The hearing will examine the interaction of many of these benefits, the complexity associated with them, and whether these benefits can be simplified to make them more efficient and effective. BACKGROUND: The complexity surrounding the Code has grown in recent years. The laws that apply to tax incentives for postsecondary education do not escape these growing concerns. The many education tax benefits come with complex rules that restrict how these products can be used separately and in combination with other similar benefits. Some of these benefits may be more beneficial to taxpayers if saving begins when the child is young. Such benefits include (1) the Coverdell education savings account; (2) a Section 529 college savings or prepaid tuition-and-fee plan; (3) U.S. education savings bonds; and (4) penalty-free withdrawals from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). Other tax incentives relate to the tax treatment of current educational expenses. With respect to these benefits, the taxpayer must decide which benefit provides the greatest tax savings and without violating rules preventing ``double dipping'' between certain tax benefits. The available benefits are (1) the Hope Credit; (2) the Lifetime Learning Credit; (3) the deduction for tuition and fees; and (4) the deduction for interest on student loans. One limitation of each of these provisions is that they do not benefit families who have no income liability. In addition, many of the benefits are phased out for taxpayers with income above certain thresholds. The complexity and interaction of these provisions can result in confusion and less than optimal choices by the taxpayer. Thus, simplification of our current structure may be necessary to produce greater efficiency and increased access for taxpayers who need as much help as possible with rising college costs. In announcing the hearing, Chairman Neal stated, ``With more than ten million families claiming tax benefits to help finance higher education each year, Congress must ensure that these benefits work as intended. This hearing will explore whether complexity in the current system means that families do not fully utilize these benefits, and provide recommendations for improvement.'' DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit testimony for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, http:// democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov, select ``110th Congress'' from the menu entitled, ``Committee Hearings'' (http://democrats.waysandmea ns.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=18). Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ``Click here to provide a submission for the record.'' Follow the online instructions, completing all informational forms and clicking ``submit'' on the final page. ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by close of business Thursday, May 15, 2008. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225-1721. FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness. Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World Wide Web at http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov. The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above.Chairman NEAL. Let me call this meeting of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee to order. Part of the American Dream has always been the hope that our kids will do better than us, and a college education is one way to ensure that. As the parent of four kids, I can tell you that matters. And how you prepare for college often times requires the need for some help. I thought I had it tough when I went to college. First generation college student from my family, I worked in a bakery for all four years to pay tuition and fees, drove a 1963 Impala back and forth to a commuter college. And, in the next generation, as a parent, I found myself with three of my four kids in college at the same time. While I felt blessed that they had been admitted to excellent schools-- Springfield College, Trinity College, and Boston College--the combined private school tuition was simply overwhelming, even for a Member of Congress. During the peak tuition year of $90,000, I actually qualified for financial aid, with 3 kids attending private universities. So I did what most American families do: I took out a second mortgage on my home, I got a second job, teaching at the University of Massachusetts, and I borrowed from my retirement account. Part of the bargain was that each of my kids would commit to pay for one year on their own. All of us will be paying off this debt for years to come. And, in my instance, one example, I will finish the last tuition payment when I am 68 years old. But I cannot imagine any other decision for my children. It was an investment in our future, and, most importantly, their future. And imagine my relief when my last child, with a spectacular jump shot, received a four-year scholarship to play basketball at the division one level at La Salle University. I thought, at that juncture, there really is justice. Franklin Roosevelt noted that school is the last expenditure upon which America should be willing to economize. I certainly understand that sentiment. Congress has responded over the years by creating a variety of tax benefits for families with higher education costs. We may have over- responded, though, with conflicting and overlapping incentives. GAO will tell us today that a quarter of taxpayers with education expenses either don't claim the right tax benefits, or miss those incentives all together. And half of those tax returns were done by professional preparers. We will also hear that these incentives may help keep down the cost of those already attending college, but may not help those for whom college is out of reach. We have assembled a diverse set of witnesses who will explain these issues and offer suggestions about how to improve these incentives. And I must say, as I conclude this opening statement, to those who are seeking the Presidency, or those who are seeking Federal office, this is the sort of issue that the American people are talking about every day. This is precisely where Congressional focus ought to be. And you talk about timing. I now would like to recognize my friend, and the Ranking Member, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, for his opening statement. Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to keep this brief. This is an area of great interest to me, and has been since I came to the Committee, as the Chairman well knows. Access to higher education for every American who strives to achieve a college education has long been a priority, not only for me, but for a whole range of leaders in this institution. I look forward to an examination of the benefits and shortcomings of the current maze of tax incentives for higher education. As a long-time advocate of breaking down the barriers to college savings, I have engaged with my colleagues on the Committee to advance many of the programs that we're going to hear about from the witnesses today, including the tuition deduction, the Section 529 plans, like the Pennsylvania tuition account program, and expanding the deductibility of the student loan interest. In my view, education is an investment in the future. Congress has a fundamental responsibility to encourage the pursuit of higher education, and to allow individuals in a free society to maximize their opportunities. In a good faith effort to achieve these goals, Congress has created a myriad of tax provisions to help save for college, and to make college more affordable. Some of these are coordinated with educational aid programs; some of them, frankly, are not. With respect to the tax credits, the testimony that we will receive today will reveal something that comes as little surprise to any of us, that the credits are complex, and as a result, many working families who should benefit from them fail to do so. Today's hearing will give us a chance to consider whether simplification of those policies, those credits, making them partially refundable, as proposed by my colleagues, Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Camp, would increase access to affordable higher education. It is my sense that it would. Simplification, which I know is dear to your heart, Mr. Chairman, as in other areas of the Tax Code, would likely be a good start in the area of education tax policy. In my view, however, we should also ensure that we maintain the broader goal of simplification and realignment, and that these do not disadvantage students and working families in the short run. To that end, Congress should ensure that the expired tuition deduction and other education incentives that are anticipated to expire in 2010 should be extended or made permanent until any consolidated program is put in place. I have introduced legislation in congress to do that. If I might, Mr. Chairman, if it is appropriate, I would like to yield to my colleague, Mr. Camp, who is an original sponsor--the number two sponsor--of this legislation, that he might complete my statement. Mr. CAMP. Well, thank you. I want thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and thank you, Chairman Neal, for holding this hearing on education tax incentives. Frankly, this is an area of the Tax Code that is long overdue for reform and simplification. I am glad the Subcommittee is taking a closer look at this issue. And hopefully the Committee will use this hearing as a platform in which we can make some real improvements to the current confusing maze of credits and deductions. I would also like to recognize my colleague on the Committee, Congressman Rahm Emanuel. Together, we introduced the Universal Higher Education and Lifetime Learning Act. Our bill really goes to the heart of reform and simplification. I know that several of the witnesses here today will discuss our bill in greater detail, but the key point of our legislation is to strengthen and simplify the three existing tax breaks students currently used to help pay for higher education: the Hope Scholarship, the Lifetime Learning Credit, and the deduction for tuition and fees. These three existing tax breaks I mentioned all have different rules for eligibility and differing maximum credit amounts. Americans shouldn't have to be experts to take advantage of these incentives, and it's no wonder that the Government Accountability Office found that many Americans don't use these incentives. In its 2006 report, GAO found that 77 percent of the 2002 tax returns were eligible to claim 1 or more of these 3 tax preferences. However, GAO found that 27 percent of those returns--about 374,000 Americans and their families--failed to use any of them. Our bill combines and simplifies these credits into one larger $3,000 tax credit. By eliminating the complexity and duplication, more students will get the financial help Congress intended. It's a common sense proposal that will help more young adults get the college degree and technical skills they will need to excel in life. Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today in support of this bill, and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member English, and Mr. Emanuel in advancing this bill in the Committee. Thank you, and I yield back. Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Camp. Let me welcome our witnesses this morning. On the first panel we will hear from Mike Brostek, the Director of Tax Issues at the GAO, who will be accompanied by George Scott, Director of Education Issues at the GAO. They have studied not only tax incentives, but also how these interact with Federal aid programs. We also welcome, for the first time before the committee, Ms. Karen Gilbreath Sowell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, United States Treasury Department. On our second panel we will hear from Dr. Debra Townsley, the President of Nichols College, in Dudley, Massachusetts. Nichols is a private, four-year college, and a member of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. We will also welcome Dr. Wayne Watson, the Chancellor of City Colleges of Chicago, in Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Watson will share his perspective as Chancellor, and the views of the American Association of Community Colleges. Next we will hear from Dr. Susan Dynarski, a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dr. Dynarski has written extensively on the efficiency of tax incentives. And, finally, we welcome Dr. Dan Ebersole, of the Georgia Office of Treasury and Fiscal Affairs in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Ebersole will share his thoughts as the Director of the office administering the Georgia 529 college savings plan. He also serves as the Chair of the College Savings Plan Network, an affiliate of the National Associate of State Treasurers, which represents the interests of state-run 529 plans. Without objection, any other Members wishing to return statements as part of the record may do so. All written statements written by the witnesses will be inserted into the record, as well. And with that, let me recognize Mr. Brostek. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BROSTEK, DIRECTOR, TAX ISSUES, STRATEGIC ISSUES TEAM, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE A. SCOTT, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION ISSUES, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Mr. BROSTEK. Chairman Neal, Mr. English, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Federal Government's efforts to financially support attendance at post-secondary education institutions. American higher education has long been crucial to the development of our nation's cultural, social, and economic capital. This hearing is an opportunity to consider whether any changes should be made in the government's overall strategy for providing such assistance, or to individual assistance programs and tax provisions. This is important, because we face large and growing future deficits, and we need to consider how the government allocates its resources. In addition, GAO has noted that a fundamental re-examination of government programs, policies, and priorities is necessary to ensure they match 21st century needs. My statement focuses on four topics: differences between tax preferences and Title IV assistance; apparent ineffective use of tax preferences, possibly due to their complexity; some issues that may arise if simplification is pursued; and the lack of research about post-secondary education assistance outcomes. Post-secondary student financial assistance provided through programs authorized by Title IV in the Tax Code differ in three key ways. First, Title IV grant and loan programs traditional provide aid to students while they are in college. Tax preferences help while in college, but also help families save before and pay after college. Next, while student aid programs and tax preferences serve students and families across a wide range of income groups, some Title IV programs, particularly the Pell Grant program, provide much of their assistance to students in families with lower average incomes. For Pell Grants to dependent students, 92 percent of the dollars, went to families with incomes of less than $40,000 in school year 2003-2004. In contrast, in 2005, 60 percent of the benefit of the tuition deduction went to families with incomes exceeding $80,000. Students and families also have more responsibility for appropriately using tax preferences, compared with Title IV aid. For Title IV aid, students and families fill out the free application for Federal student aid form, and submit it to the Department of Education. The education department calculates the student's and family's expected family contribution. The student's educational institutions, then, determine aid eligibility, the amounts, and packaging of awards. In contrast, users of tax benefits must identify all the applicable preferences, understand the rules, understand how these preferences interact with one another, and with Federal student aid, keep records sufficient to support their tax filing, and correctly claim any credit or deduction on their returns. These tax preferences can be difficult for families to understand. Perhaps due to their complexity, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers failed to claim tax benefits that they are entitled to, or did not claim tax benefits that would be most advantageous to them. For example, for tax year 2005, we estimate that about 410,000 taxpayers--for whom we could make an estimate--failed to claim an education credit or the tuition deduction to which they were entitled. About 190,000 additional taxpayers used one provision, when another would have been better for them. About half of those taxpayers making sub-optimal choices used paid preparers. The complexity of post-secondary education programs might be simplified by consolidating them, perhaps as a single credit or otherwise. Such simplification might well reduce confusion among taxpayers. In considering simplification, some key issues would need to be understood, such as whether the benefits would be provided before costs are incurred, versus afterward, or the budgetary consequences of differing simplification options. Finally, we found that Congress has received little evidence concerning the effectiveness of assistance provided under either Title IV, or through the tax preferences, in promoting, for example, post-secondary attendance or choice amongst educational institutions. We found no research on any aspect of effectiveness for several major Title IV programs and tax preferences. For example, no research had examined the effects of education tax preferences on students' persistence in their studies, or the type of institution they chose to attend. Gaps in research on post-secondary education programs may be due in part to data, methodological challenges that have proven difficult to overcome. The relative newness of most of the preferences also presents challenges, because relevant data are just now becoming available. That concludes my statement. Mr. Scott and I will be happy to answer questions. [The prepared statement of Michael Brostek follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.046 Chairman NEAL. Mr. Scott, you can proceed. Mr. SCOTT. I don't have a statement at this time, Mr. Chairman. I am here to answer questions. Chairman NEAL. Okay. Ms. Sowell. STATEMENT OF KAREN GILBREATH SOWELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TAX POLICY, UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT Ms. SOWELL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member English, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to discuss tax incentives for higher education. Education is important to the Administration, and we recognize there may be room for improvement in the tax benefits currently provided through the Internal Revenue Code to encourage higher education. We believe, as you do, that it is important, periodically, to assess the provisions within our Tax Code to determine whether modifications are warranted, and we appreciate your leadership in studying this important subject. From a broad perspective, it is also important that we keep in mind that these tax incentives are just one aspect of an array of governmental and other programs that help individuals and families meet the challenge of financing higher education and that figure into their decisions regarding higher education. While I am not an expert on the non-tax offerings, we believe the non-tax programs must be taken into account when assessing the efficacy of the higher education tax incentives. My testimony today highlights the myriad tax incentives enacted over several decades to help families save for college and finance higher education. From available data, we know that certain of these incentives are being utilized by a significant number of America's students and families. However, our available data does not tell us whether the incentives are being used optimally by taxpayers to maximize their benefits. Further, it does not tell us whether the incentives are effective in influencing higher learning choices, or if, instead, they are simply furthering the goal of making higher education more affordable. For individuals and families who have the ability and who have the sufficient time to save in advance for higher education, there are significant tax benefits to assist them. The Administration and Congress have made considerable progress during the past seven years to improve savings-related incentives, notably the 2001 tax legislation expanded Coverdell education savings accounts and Section 529 plans to make distribution from plan accounts for post-secondary education expenses tax-free, and to allow private educational institutions to create Section 529 plans. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 made the changes to Section 529 permanent, which helped eliminate uncertainty with respect to this education savings vehicle. Further, the Administration's budget for Fiscal Year 2009 includes a proposal to extend the Saver's Credit for contributions to Section 529 plans, in order to encourage and assist low-income families in saving for higher education. Those students and families who are facing immediate education-related costs without the benefit of savings, however, confront a patchwork of education-related tax incentives, that are complex, often overlapping, and can have varying applications to individuals in different circumstances. For example, tax credits and deductions to help families pay for higher education include the Hope Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit. Parents supporting college students may claim a personal exemption, or Earned Income Tax Credit, if applicable, for full-time students aged 19 through 23, where children over the age of 18 otherwise do not qualify as dependents. To name a few others, a student may exclude from gross income the amount of a qualified scholarship, or a loan that is forgiven if a student works for a required period of time in certain professions or locations. There is also an unlimited gift tax exclusion for tuition paid directly to a school on behalf of a student. Given the range of available education tax benefits, it is understandable that many find them difficult to parse. The incentives vary, in terms of who may receive benefits, which expenses may be covered, and how large an allowed exclusion, deduction, or credit may be. For example, part-time students may be eligible for the education credits and savings interest exclusion. Only full- time students may qualify for the dependent deduction. Some provisions, like the Hope Credit, are calculated per student, while others, like the Lifetime Learning Credit and the student loan interest deduction, are calculated per taxpayer. Different expenses qualify under different provisions, and phase-outs with different income thresholds apply to different incentives. Because of this complexity, it may be difficult for a student or parent to determine the value of the tax incentives. In addition, the value of incentives based on adjusted gross income is necessarily retrospective, unless the student or parents can predict their income with precision. The more difficult it is to predict the value of the tax benefit accurately, the less effective these benefits are as incentives for the pursuit of higher education. My written testimony includes a number of examples that illustrate the complex nature of the existing tax provisions and the differing outcomes that can occur for students and families in different situations. In conclusion, while there is clearly a need to address the complexity concerns arising from the current welter of tax incentives, it is important to remain cognizant that revisions to the tax regime may lead to unintended consequences. Recognizing budgetary constraints, legislative reform of existing tax incentives will almost invariably result in winners and losers. Further, considering that the population of students spans so many circumstances and situations, there may be no one-size- fits-all solution. Legislative reform of tax incentives would also need to address transition issues for those students and families who currently rely on existing provisions, or plan on them in the near term, to minimize the adverse effects of any reform on educational pursuits. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member English, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity to participate today. I would be pleased to respond to your questions. [The prepared statement of Karen Sowell follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.063 Chairman NEAL. Thank you very much, Ms. Gilbreath Sowell. In discussing your testimony with my staff, I concluded that we were pretty impressed with the details that you offered. And considering that this is your inaugural visit to the Committee, you certainly took the task seriously. In the examples you have included of the confusing choices the typical family might face are extremely instructive for the Committee. On the much tougher question of how we simplify, however, your testimony is more silent. And I don't blame you. Obviously, the choices are not easy. But I know the Administration has proposed some changes to the tax benefits in the past. Can you tell us whether Treasury is currently looking at an effort to craft a simplified education tax benefit, or are there any proposals that are ruminating through the Department? Ms. SOWELL. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman, and I might add that I am very impressed with the funding that you have provided for your family in these education endeavors. Chairman NEAL. I will be working until I'm 90. [Laughter.] Ms. SOWELL. As I mentioned, over this Administration, this Administration and this Congress have provided significant adjustments to the savings-related incentives for education. And those are permanent adjustments that should serve families well going forward. There have been significant advancements in the Section 529 accounts and Coverdell savings accounts to allow for tax-free dollars for post-secondary education. And in addition, our current budget proposes to extend the Saver's Credit to the Section 529 savings plans. As you also are aware, in our Fiscal Year 2005 budget, we recommended simplifying and bringing together some of these tax incentives for simplification purposes. Chairman NEAL. And, Mr. Brostek, your research is astounding: 28 percent of the filers either missed education tax benefits, or did not claim the right benefit for the maximum credit. GAO recommended some time ago that the Department of Education, consulting with Treasury, study the effectiveness of the combined aid and tax programs, but little has really been done. Do you think that a very detailed Federal financial aid form--which, by the way, is pretty challenging--might be one place where families could be tipped off to the potential tax benefits, or is it already so complex that this would simply confuse the matter? Mr. BROSTEK. Well, that's certainly an option. As you rightfully note, though, that is a long and quite complex form. And it is filled out before assistance is provided, whereas the tax benefits, other than the savings provisions, are generally after the expenses have occurred. I think it might be better to have a flag like that when it would be contemporaneous with the taxpayer making a decision about which provision to use. So, for instance, the educational institutions send the taxpayer a Form 1098-T that indicates their child did attend the institution, and also, in some cases, includes the expenses. That form might be a better place to flag to the taxpayer that they can use various tax benefits, and that they need to carefully select among them to choose the one that's best for them. Chairman NEAL. And, Ms. Gilbreath Sowell, you mentioned the burdens on taxpayers of claiming these benefits, including additional and more complicated tax forms. After reading your taxpayer examples, where the wrong choice penalizes the taxpayer by hundreds of dollars, it seems we are already forcing these families to seek professional tax assistance, and that certainly lends itself to additional costs. Is that counter-intuitive? Ms. SOWELL. Mr. Chairman, you are correct, that whenever there are multiple tax provisions that could apply to a single expenditure, that creates complexity. I will note that the Treasury Department and the IRS have worked very closely with the Department of Education to provide information to the Education Department that could be disseminated to students and families. In addition, the IRS has a very thoughtful 80-page publication that tries to identify all the tax provisions that are available in a plain-English style, with computational aids that can help families figure this out. I am actually quite impressed with the publication. If you have had an opportunity to look through it--which I would guess you have, based on your experience--it is a very useful tool. That said, I have no doubt that, because of the complexity, there are things that are missed, and possibly options that are not taken by students and families that should be taken. Chairman NEAL. Before I yield to Mr. English, in every January I host two forums on financial aid, where we assemble experts from across the field, and invite constituents to attend. I must tell you, the crowds are overwhelming. And much of it relates to the whole issue of complexity. And the people that walk through that door of good will and good purpose are genuinely confused by the options that are available to them. Seminars typically last for two hours. And I must tell you again, nobody gets up to leave. They stay through the whole demonstration process, and they leave maybe with a little bit of relief that they're going to get through it. But again, the issue of complexity threatens to overwhelm the process. And with that, I would like to yield to Mr. English. Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess my questions will follow very much in the same vein. Mr. Brostek, in examining this field, I understand many experts believe that taxpayers are often simply not aware of the existence of the Hope or Lifetime Learning tax credits when making a decision about whether to send a child to college, or how much college they can afford. Instead, for those taxpayers, the credits come as a surprise the following April, when they file their taxes. Did any of your research confirm this? Mr. BROSTEK. We didn't gather any specific information on that. But, given the number of individuals we found who didn't claim any of the provisions, I can certainly suppose that many people were unaware of them. Mr. ENGLISH. What are Congress's options, apart from simplification, which I strongly supportive of, to make sure that the credits have their desired effect of helping people who are making a decision about whether they can afford college? Mr. BROSTEK. There I think it would have to be educational assistance before the expenses are incurred, before a decision is made to go to college. And it is possible that additional assistance with the form--perhaps not on the form, but accompanying it--would be made available to taxpayers, to help them understand that there are tax benefits available, and how much those benefits might be worth. Perhaps there could be some tools made available, either at the IRS or perhaps in the Department of Education, for people who have computer access, to go in and get some sense, if they had their current financial circumstances, how much aid might they get if they use one of the benefits. Mr. ENGLISH. In your testimony you note that 19 percent of tax returns that showed eligibility for 1 of the Federal tax benefits for higher education had failed to claim it. You also said that many of these returns were prepared by professional preparers. The latter fact is especially disturbing. Did you attempt to determine why even professional preparers failed to claim available education tax benefits for their clients? Mr. BROSTEK. We haven't determined that, but we have at least a little bit of indirect evidence. A couple of years ago we did some mystery shopping during the tax season. We went into some paid preparers, pretending to be taxpayers under a couple of scenarios, one of which was an individual who had a child who was eligible for one of these tax benefits. And the impression we had was that the paid preparers were not all that knowledgeable themselves, and the software programs--almost all paid preparers use software programs-- didn't seem to be giving them the kind of prompts that may have helped the paid preparers determine what would be the best option to make available to their client. Mr. ENGLISH. Now, on a rather different angle, Mr. Brostek, according to the National Association of College and University Business Officers, in 2006 the 7 universities with the largest endowments were sitting on more than $100 billion of endowment assets. Average endowment asset growth at these schools was 17 percent from the year before. Some of these endowment dollars are from years of tax- exempt investment income earned by the universities. Some of these endowment dollars are from charitable contributions, for which a deduction was taken decades ago, yet the university has not yet used the money for an educational purpose Has the GAO examined whether we are getting a good rate of return on our investment, such as through lower tuitions or greater financial aid for students in need? And shouldn't we be asking questions about universities that sharply raise tuition, at the same time balances in their endowment increase even faster? Mr. BROSTEK. While we haven't directly studied that issue, it certainly is an important one. Some of those endowments are indeed extremely large. There are a number of issues that would need to be considered. A significant portion of endowments, as I understand it, have strings attached. The donation to the institution requires that money to be used for various identified purposes which may, to some extent, constrict the college's ability to use it for student assistance directly, for instance. I do think it's a very important topic. As you note, it's a relatively small number of institutions that have the very large endowments, and there are many, many more institutions who don't have those endowments but have needy students. Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. English. Mr. McDermott will inquire. Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having represented the University of Washington in the State Legislature and the United States Congress for almost 40 years, I am somewhat familiar with the complexity of what you're up to. So, I would like to ask you a question. I would like you to step out of your role here and be a counselor at the University of Washington, or at the Seattle Central Community College, which Newsweek said was the best community college in the United States. A young woman comes in, single, $30,000 salary as a secretary. She has two kids. She has one year down at the community college. She is trying to go from being a secretary to a legal assistant in the office in which she is working. Which program should she try to access? Mr. BROSTEK. Well, that's a very good question, and I would---- Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's a vote of confidence. Mr. BROSTEK. I would have to do some research on the situation. Mr. MCDERMOTT. Why would you have to do research? Mr. BROSTEK. Well---- Mr. MCDERMOTT. You guys have been studying this stuff. Mr. BROSTEK. Well, there is a bit of a difference between doing the research that we have done on--from the tax records, how many people may have made a poor choice, to actually analyzing the specific situation of an individual that is involved. And I have to admit that a lot of the expertise that went behind our calculations on who made the best choice was not my own personal expertise, but the expertise of people who work with me in my office. Mr. MCDERMOTT. Do either of the others have any idea what you would tell this young woman who is trying to get ahead? Mr. SCOTT. I think some of the question you raised, and more generally, the issues that are involved here, get at the heart of why the complexities surrounding the tax preferences, as well as the tile four Higher Education Act programs are important, in terms of looking for ways to enhance the financial literacy of students. Mr. MCDERMOTT. She can't access Title IV, can she? She has to go half-time, and she is working full-time and raising two kids on $30,000. So the likelihood of her going to school full- time is probably pretty small, isn't it? Mr. SCOTT. Well, you know, it depends on her financial circumstances, generally. There are a broad range of programs, both under Title IV, as well as institutional-based programs that she might be eligible for. But, as I mentioned, that's the importance of having sound financial advisors and student financial advisors on campus to help assist her, in terms of making sure that she applies for the broad range of programs that she might be eligible for. Mr. MCDERMOTT. Did you look at the question of whether any of the colleges had those kinds of advisors in sufficient numbers to actually help them figure out this maze? Mr. SCOTT. For this study, we did not look at the availability of student financial aid advisors on campus. Generally though, most colleges and universities and community colleges do have a number of staff who are available in the financial aid office to assist students. The financial aid offices are the ones who, based on the information they receive from the Department of Education, from the FAFSA form, developed a financial aid package for students. Mr. MCDERMOTT. Where do they get the money to finance the financial aid office? Mr. SCOTT. My assumption would be that is basically general administrative costs borne by the university. Mr. MCDERMOTT. So we don't put any money into these programs that could be accessed by schools to finance their financial aid office. It has to be out of state money or tuition money, or some other place that they might come up with the money to hire the people who are smart enough to help this young woman figure out how to work the way through the maze? Mr. SCOTT. I am not aware of any direct Federal subsidy to assist schools with the financial aid, administration of financial aid. Mr. MCDERMOTT. And is there--are the programs that she is going to be offered--I mean can you generally tell me? Would it be better for her to take tax credits or a grant up front? Or can she get a grant? Does anybody know? Mr. BROSTEK. Well, as I am sure that you do know, there are lots of grants that are available from sources other than the Federal Government. And certainly a financial aid officer, hopefully, would be aware of some of those opportunities that might be available, locally. I think in the circumstance you're describing, the individual probably could claim the Life--I mean the Hope tax credit. But again, I would have to study the specific situation to be sure. Mr. MCDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. It is pretty clear that you have to have a Ph.D. to wind your way through the financial aid system. And that is standing in the way of an awful lot of people accessing--she can't--this woman that I am talking about--can't take courses if it is not related to her work and get the tax credit, because it has to be just sort of related--Boeing can give their employees time off, as long as it's supposedly related to what the Boeing Aircraft Company does. But if they want to get themselves upgraded somewhere else, tax credits don't seem to work very well. I yield back the balance. Chairman NEAL. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Linder. Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Sowell, between 1990 and 2005, Federal aid to students increased by 77 percent, and enrollment increased by 26 percent. Why this disconnect? And why should we expect that this change is going to increase enrollment? Ms. SOWELL. Congressman Linder, that is a very interesting observation that you are making. I must say that I am not really qualified to make any observation on my own, with respect to that. Mr. LINDER. Mr. Brostek. Mr. BROSTEK. We haven't studied that, either. George, do you have any---- Mr. LINDER. Thank you. Wasn't able to say. Chairman NEAL. With that, the gentleman from Connecticut-- maybe we could--okay, perhaps we will move to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Emanuel, for inquiry. Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this. I also note that the cosponsor of our legislation on simplification, Congressman Camp, was also here earlier. And I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Watson, who is head of the community colleges in Chicago--he is going to be testifying-- and for holding this hearing, both to you and to the Ranking Member. You know, I mean, what we have here--and I want to follow up on what my colleague, Jim McDermott, was talking about--and I helped in 1997, when we did the balanced budget, creating Hope and Lifetime credits. Our intention here is a good thing. It got messed up. We just--one of the good things we will do is, if we figure it out and acknowledge when you have 12 different credits and deductions on the books with different instructions, all trying to help people do one thing, go to college, it's time for some reforms, because when 28 percent over a quarter can't get it right, either are missing, are not filling it out right, errors in their judgement, not getting the right type of credit or deduction or missing dollars, we have a problem, Houston. We've got a problem here. And when the IRS--and the GAO, I think, found this out-- even H&R Block, which has professionals, 50 percent of the time got it wrong, that is why Jim's example--there is no way this woman will get it right. And these are well-intentioned programs. And as somebody who helped pass this, both the Hope and the Lifetime tax credit being the two kind of more significant of the 12, we--I believe it's time for reform to consolidate, which is why Dave Camp and I introduced this legislation, bipartisan legislation, with a lot of sponsors here, on the Ways and Means Committee, because it is imperative that if people are not getting the deductions or the dollars or the resources they need to get the education, they not only suffer, but the country suffers. And the single largest reason people are not going to college, be that a community college or a four-year institution, is cost. The average graduate today graduates with $19,000 in debt. So before they even get their diploma they get their first Visa bill. And this is crazy. Now, we have introduced this legislation to make it more uniform, and to bring it in line where you consolidate the top three and have all the standard deductions, so you get--there is 80 pages of recommendations on how to fill it out. Get rid of that, because if it's too complicated and you need a Ph.D. before you fill out the information to get your bachelor's, we got a serious issue here. One question, though, for the Administration which I-- Treasury--which I don't understand, in 2005--in the 2005 budget, the President had proposed a series of reforms to consolidation, et cetera. But the recent budget didn't. I can't believe that folks in the Treasury thought that we had been making a lot of improvements here, and that some--I mean, either this is an oversight, a mistake, you know, or there is another statement here. What is the reason for that? Ms. SOWELL. Congressman Emanuel, you raise some very interesting points in your question. The mere fact that our 2005 budget proposal is not included in subsequent years does not indicate that we are not in support of simplification of this complex web of tax incentives. As your colleague, Congressman McDermott, pointed out, assessing the tax incentive program and where we should go from here inevitably requires a hard look at all the other incentives that are available through the Federal Government, as well as private institutions. Mr. EMANUEL. Well, I am going to take that as an oversight then, because I guess--I mean, I don't understand what you did in--in 2005 you thought it was good enough. And whatever it is, it is our responsibility here in congress to take this up. I would like to note one thing on the--if I can, Mr. Chairman--on the legislation, and I know the Ranking Member also spoke about it, and I want to thank him--in favor of it-- is that if you consolidate Hope, Lifetime, and the other credits, you would apply both to community colleges, four-year institutions, and graduate schools, and have a standard $3,000. We would go a long way towards simplification. So, before we get to the debate of other things we got to do, or other resources, simplification would increase participation. That is true also, as we have argued before, on the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), where we have great programs that--participation rates are low because of complexity, not because of missed something else that's wrong with the program. And I happen--in my office we have helped people fill out tax returns in the Earned Income Tax Credit area every year. We do over $1 million in EITC returns, and we need professionals there because of the complexity. And I think that if we did this, we would get participation rates up here. I would note one other thing. To fill this out is about 80 pages, recommendations from the IRS. If you are Boeing or Microsoft, or any other user of the export/import bank, which has hundreds of lawyers and accountants, the entire form for the loan is 13 questions. And they got lawyers, and all these kids got are their parents--not that the parents aren't good, but the forms for going to college--and, again, the Hope or Lifetime tax credit or the FAFSA should not be the leading cause for divorce in America. [Laughter.] Mr. EMANUEL. Okay? It's ridiculous. Now, I have nothing wrong with giving Boeing and--the 13 questions. They figured out how to make it easy. Let's help these kids and their parents figure out how to make it easy to go to college. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman NEAL. That was very instructive, Mr. Emanuel. Mr. EMANUEL. My parents are still married. [Laughter.] Chairman NEAL. It occurred to me you might want to start a column called, ``Dear Rahm.'' All right. With that, the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Schwartz, will inquire. Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this hearing. And I really appreciate the work that is being done by my colleagues to simplify this process. Certainly, I think many of us have been talking a good deal about the importance of going to college, of getting a higher education in this really competitive world we live in. We understand that access to college is increasingly important. Always was, but even more so in such a competitive marketplace, as we compete not only with each other, but certainly with other countries as well. The issue that I wanted to raise, in addition to this simplification, is that I--as I went through the different initiatives that are available to students, or potential students, the income limit tends to be at least family income under about $110,000. That's the upper income I could find in all these different programs. And certainly in my district, there are many families that are in that category, but there are many families who are just above it. And I hear from them a good bit. And you know, particularly in this difficult economic time, two wage earners earning $100,000 seems like a lot of money. They thought they would be doing fine. But by the time they pay their mortgage in--even if they got a better one than--didn't get a really risky one, in the Philadelphia area, Philadelphia or its suburbs, by the time they pay energy costs, obviously health care bills are a major concern, maybe helping to support parents, it's really--the idea of actually finding the hard dollars--these are after-tax dollars, by and large, you know, for college tuition, as well as the costs of room and board, it's really difficult. And I hear from many parents who are saying how--``I don't know how I'm going to manage to do this,'' and yet they don't really qualify for any of these programs if you're making $120,000, $150,000 a year. And these are people, again, they thought they would be much more comfortable. They assumed they could send their kids to college, and they can't. So, if they have more than one child, and they're actually close together in age, and if you compound that--which is the other issue I wanted to ask about, is also about--for non- traditional students who are going back for additional education, they are also saying to themselves, ``Well, how could I possibly afford it,'' maybe at the same time their children are going to college to be able to find those dollars, and they may even be earning--they may be working full-time, earning far more, but know that they need to get other--get a college degree. So, could you speak to whether you all agree that we might need to look at, as we simplify the access to these loans, look at the income eligibility, as well? Do you--are you--could you speak to whether, in fact, you think we're at the right place, or whether you would agree that there are families that are making more money than are in any of these programs, but in fact are also finding it very, very difficult to be able to find the hard cold cash that they need to go to college? Mr. BROSTEK. It's clearly an important policy issue for policy makers, such as yourselves, to decide who should be assisted by the programs. On your first example, part of what ran through my mind as you were speaking, is that there is the college savings route. And perhaps part of the problem is people not having sufficient financial literacy early in their careers to understand how much they need to set aside to fund their hoped-for college expenses when their children are older. So, it may not require an adjustment to the assistance that is available while you're in college. It may require more education up front of people early in their careers to set money aside. Ms. SCHWARTZ. And you determine the 529s, which certainly we try to do in Pennsylvania, really be aggressive about telling parents--and grandparents, potentially--about putting dollars away. But still, that is a certain amount of outreach to have people know that it applies to them. What we know is that so many families assume that they're not actually eligible for government programs. So that's one that they need to know. But even if they are doing what they thought they should do, in terms of savings, it's still hard to have saved that amount of money for a couple of kids--or maybe three kids, even--to go to college. Did anyone else want to make a comment about the upper income levels? Ms. Sowell? Ms. SOWELL. I think you make an excellent point, and I would echo the comments by the GAO. I think there is also some interesting and important learning when you compare the current benefits as they relate to families versus individuals students who are seeking higher education, and I think that probably needs to go into the determination of where the benefits would ultimately land. I would also point out that any kind of wholesale rewriting of these rules and trying to synthesize them and bring them together could inevitably result in winners and losers. And those groups of individuals would need to be assessed to determine whether that is the right target group. Ms. SCHWARTZ. All right. Well, it's something I would actually sort of suggest I might want to have more--further conversation with my colleagues about, how we do this. Certainly targeting a low income is something we are deeply concerned about, because they have the most difficulty. But again, we are in a position where people who would have thought they, of course, could go to college are finding themselves not able to, or dropping out because their families absolutely can't find the dollars. So, I think it's something that I think I raise as an issue for my colleagues, as much as for the panel. Thank you very much. Chairman NEAL. I want to thank the panelists, but I have one last question. I serve on the Board of Trustees at Mount Holyoke College. And, Mr. Scott or the other panelists, Malcolm Gladwell immortalized the term ``tipping point.'' Is there a tipping point--and I ask this question annually at the Board of Trustees meeting as tuition is raised--if tuition, for example, is at $49,000 and the family says, ``We will do that,'' and all of a sudden tuition goes to $50,000, do they say, ``We won't do it at $50,000?'' Is there any sort of line that your data would instruct us to pursue? Mr. BROSTEK. We don't have any analysis that shows us that kind of choice, definitively. But it certainly makes intuitive sense. At some point, something is out of reach. It does, then, suggest that there are other types of educational institutions that someone might attend that are less expensive, but maybe aren't what someone had kind of dreamed of attending. Chairman NEAL. Is there also any data that would indicate a trend line as it pertains to ability to pay? Are we beginning to see the really great collages--are they more and more taking into consideration ability to pay, as opposed to a needs-based assessment, in trying to put together a diverse student body? Mr. SCOTT. Increasingly, we are seeing some schools-- primarily large schools; we talked about them previously, those with relatively large endowments--are increasingly looking to provide more grant aid versus loans, in terms of the financial aid package. Once again, now, that's a real small number of schools who are in a position to do that. Some schools, for example, have said, that for families with incomes less than $100,000, the student won't be charged any tuition or fees, for example. Once again, that's a small number of colleges. I would like to just add one other thing, that despite the number of challenges we see families facing, in terms of sending children to school, when we looked at the data last fall we did find that the number of folks attending college and universities is continuing to increase, and that the vast majority of students are at--or about 60 percent are at schools charging relatively affordable tuition and fees. Only a small percentage of students are actually attending college and universities where the tuition and fees is over $25,000 a year. So, despite the number of challenges, overall, the higher education story continues to be a success story---- Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, may I address this point when he is done? Chairman NEAL. Yes. Mr. EMANUEL. I don't want to interrupt. Are you done? Mr. BROSTEK. Yes. Mr. EMANUEL. That is true, except for that's this side of the ledger. Four million kids choose not to go to college because of cost. That's four million people left out of the American dream. You are right, it's increasing, but that's a demographic fact, not the one we're dealing with here, which is how to make financial access to higher education less intrusive on people's lives. So, I would--I want to--although you're right on that statistic, we're dealing with something else here, which is the cost of college education, the complexity of the Tax Code, which is our purview, something we have enacted. Can we make it better and easier? And when four million people choose not to go because of cost, we've got a responsibility to see whether we're a contributing factor to that. Second, when over a quarter of the people who fill out the form either don't get the right credit or deduction that's for them, or B, make errors or mistakes because of the complexity, that doesn't make us immune from our responsibility to simplify. So, I agree with you on the demographics. I don't agree with you on the purview of what this hearing is all about. And I left off one thing I wanted to add on my statement earlier. When we pass the Higher Education Reauthorization bill in the coming weeks, we will have in there the simplification of the FAFSA form, which will dramatically reduce the 108 questions down in half, and force it to be consumer-friendly English, like we force businesses to do. The government form will actually come down on that. And that is half the battle. The next half is making the Tax Code as simplified as we are now doing with the FAFSA form, which is for student aid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Emanuel. And I want to thank the panelists for their very informative and instructive testimony today. And let me at this time call up our second panel. Let me welcome our panelists. And as a customary courtesy, I would like to call on Mr. Emanuel at this time to introduce one of his constituents. Mr. EMANUEL. This is Dr. Watson, who runs the community colleges in Chicago, who is a dear friend. And I just mentioned the FAFSA form. When--I introduced that legislation when I first ran for congress to simplify this FAFSA form. Dr. Watson, with I at the Harold Washington Community College in Chicago in the loop, was there. And that announcement of six years ago, almost to the day, in about three weeks from now will hopefully become law. And Dr. Watson has been a great leader in making the community colleges in Chicago--of which I have one, the Wright community College in my district--is a great leader in education and in our country, and has been a dear friend of our family, let alone that we share a similarity, given that I have a background in ballet and Dr. Watson has a background in tap dancing. He is a far better dancer and educator. Chairman NEAL. We thank you very much. With that, Dr. Townsley, would you proceed? STATEMENT OF DEBRA M. TOWNSLEY, PRESIDENT, NICHOLS COLLEGE, DUDLEY, MASSACHUSETTS Ms. TOWNSLEY. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. I will keep my comments brief, and will leave written testimony with more details for your review. My name is Debra Townsley, and I am President of Nichols College, in Dudley, Massachusetts. Nichols is a four-year private institution with a student body of more than 1,500 full and part-time students who are enrolled in Nichols's under- graduate and graduate programs. We have an alumni body of about 11,000. The mission of Nichols is to develop tomorrow's leaders through a dynamic, career-focused business education. More than 90 percent of Nichols students achieve gainful employment in their field of study within 6 months of graduation. And the average starting salary of last year's class was about $40,000. Many of our graduates and students are first-generation college students. The vast majority of our students--93 percent--are dependent upon financial aid to help pay their college expenses. Eighty-nine percent receive Nichols College aid, specifically. At Nichols College, we have an annual budget of about $27 million, and we give financial aid of about $10 million. Our college does extensive outreach programs by providing education and information on access to at-risk populations through programs like Kids to College and Gear Up. Our admissions and financial aid staff are active in the community, facilitating dozens of financial aid information sessions, both on campus and across the state. And we include parent education on tuition tax benefits. There are several higher education tax incentives, some current and some expired, that are enormously important to the students and families of private colleges, like Nichols. Two provisions that I would like to mention first are the tuition deduction and the IRA charitable roll-over. Both of these provisions expired at the end of 2007, and have not yet been renewed. The tuition deduction allowed students or parents who could not claim the Hope or Lifetime tax credits to deduct qualified higher education expenses from their taxable income. This deduction provides relief to self-supporting students and to families whose adjusted gross income is too high to qualify for the Hope and Lifetime learning credits. The expiration of the deduction in December of 2007 has caused great concern among students and their parents. I urge the Subcommittee and full Committee to extend this important education tax benefit. The IRA roll-over is a relatively new charitable giving incentive that allowed donors to roll over excess retirement savings to any public charity without tax penalties for non- retirement use of retirement funds. A recent survey by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities found that IRA roll-over gifts totaled $144 million. Just a month ago, I received a call from a trustee, asking if he could use an IRA roll-over to endow a $100,000 scholarship at Nichols. And, sadly, I had to tell him, ``Not right now.'' This is private money that helps colleges and universities with scarce resources and rising costs. As with the tuition deduction, I urge the prompt and retroactive extension of the IRA charitable roll-over. Other current tax incentives important to colleges and universities, our students and families, would include: the student loan interest deduction; the sections of Internal Revenue Code Section 127, which provide for employer-provided education assistance; tax-favored education savings accounts; and Section 529 college savings plans; and the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits. I applaud the efforts of the Members of this Committee for extending important expiring provisions and simplifying the credits. Representative English has introduced H.R. 147, which would make permanent those tax benefits set to expire at the end of 2010. Representatives Emanuel and Camp have taken the lead on simplification by introducing H.R. 2458. The bill would make college more affordable for the middle class, by providing a larger credit than current law allows, and it increases the income caps for individuals eligible to claim the credit. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Subcommittee and the full Committee to continue their commitments to our students and our institutions by retroactively extending both the tuition deduction and the IRA charitable roll-over. In addition, I urge Members to make permanent the important provisions that will expire at the end of 2010. In return, I offer the continued commitment of private institutions like Nichols to advance and improve our own efforts to control costs, increase transparency, and educate our students. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Debra Townsley follows:] Statement of Debra M. Townsley, President, Nichols College, Dudley, Massachusetts Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Debra Townsley, and I am the President of Nichols College in Dudley, Massachusetts. Nichols College is a four-year private institution with a student body of more than 1,500 full-time and part-time students who are enrolled in Nichols' undergraduate, graduate, and certificate programs, and an alumni body of more than 11,000. Nichols College strives to develop tomorrow's leaders through a dynamic, career-focused business education. The College offers quality undergraduate degree programs in business, educator preparation and the liberal arts, graduate degree programs in business and a comprehensive continuing education program. More than 90 percent of Nichols students achieve gainful employment in their field of study within six months of graduation. The average starting salary for last year's class was about $40,000. Many of our students are first-generation college students while many others are second generation and/or children of alumni. Our students come from 43 states and several foreign countries. We have students from all socioeconomic backgrounds, but our typical student is middle income. The vast majority (93%) of our students are dependent upon financial aid, particularly college-funded aid programs, to help pay their college expenses. And, 89% receive Nichols College aid specifically. The tax-exempt status of colleges and universities recognizes the public good that institutions of higher education contribute to the nation. In 2005, private colleges and universities employed nearly a million people nationwide, and brought more than $355 billion into their local economies.\1\ In Massachusetts, private colleges educating the citizens of the Commonwealth save the state public education system $2-$2.5 billion annually.\2\ Students attending private colleges and universities today receive five times more grant aid from their own institutions than from the Federal Government.\3\ At Nichols College, which has an annual budget of $27 million, we give aid of about $10 million. Nationwide, private colleges enroll as many low-income and minority students as public four-year institutions, but they graduate from our institutions at a higher rate. Surprisingly, nearly 80% of the minority students in Massachusetts attending a four-year college are attending an independent institution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Data provided by the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU). \2\ Data provided by the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM). \3\ Data provided by NAICU. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are several higher education tax incentives--some current and some expired--that are enormously important to the students and families of private colleges like Nichols. Two provisions I would like to mention first are the tuition deduction and the IRA charitable rollover. Both of these provisions expired at the end of 2007, and have not been renewed. The tuition deduction allowed students or parents who could not claim the Hope or Lifetime Learning tax credits to deduct qualified higher education expenses from their taxable income. Self-supporting students, including those who borrow to pay tuition, were also eligible to take this deduction without filing a Form 1040. The deduction provides relief to families whose adjusted gross income (AGI) is too high to qualify for the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits. Single filers with an AGI of up to $65,000 ($130,000 for joint filers) could deduct $4,000 per year. While we don't collect specific information on how many of our students have claimed the deduction in the past, I can tell you that the expiration of the deduction in December of 2007 has caused great concern among students and their parents that this important benefit will no longer be available, since it has not yet been renewed. I urge the Subcommittee and Full Committee to extend this important education tax benefit. The IRA rollover is a relatively new charitable giving incentive that allowed donors to roll over excess retirement savings to any public charity without tax penalties for non-retirement use of retirement funds. The rollover was only in effect for the last few months of 2006 and all of 2007. It was limited to gifts of $100,000 per person, per year. Individuals age 70\1/2\ and older could withdraw funds from either a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA, and gifts could be made to any public charity, including colleges and universities. The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities conducted a survey among its membership on the effect of the rollover on alumni giving. Responses showed a powerful influence on giving, with over $144 million in gifts to independent colleges and universities. Just a month ago, I received a call from a Trustee asking if he could use an IRA rollover to endow a scholarship at Nichols. I had to tell him not right now, but hopefully Congress will act in time to renew that incentive. This is private money that helps colleges and universities with scarce resources and rising costs. Endowments help colleges like mine fund ongoing scholarships, and most of us do not have large endowments. Sixty percent of Massachusetts independent colleges and universities have endowments less than $50 million, and the median endowment of all privates in Massachusetts is $32 million.\4\ As with tuition deduction, I urge the prompt and retroactive extension of the IRA rollover. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Data provided by the Association of Independent College and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other current tax incentives important to colleges and universities, our students and families, would include the Student Loan Interest Deduction, Internal Revenue Code Section 127--employer- provided education assistance, tax-favored education savings accounts and Section 529 college savings plans, and the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits. These tax benefits help students throughout their lifetimes. Section 529 plans encourage families to save for higher education expenses when their children are still young. The Hope and Lifetime Learning credits and the tuition deduction help middle-class families pay tuition while students are still in college. And the Student Loan Interest Deduction gives a much-needed tax break to graduates who are paying back student loans. I applaud the efforts of members of this Subcommittee for extending important expiring provisions and simplifying the credits. Rep. English has introduced H.R. 1407, the Higher Education Affordability and Equity Act, which would make permanent those tax benefits set to expire at the end of 2010. Rep. Emmanuel and Rep. Camp have taken the lead on simplification by introducing H.R. 2458. Their legislation would consolidate the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits and the tuition deduction into a simple, streamlined credit. The bill would make college more affordable for the middle class by providing a larger credit than current law allows, and increases the income caps for individuals eligible to claim the credit. According to our Financial Aid Office, and information collected on the FAFSA--the Free Application for Federal Student Aid--approximately half of the students enrolled at Nichols are eligible for the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits. I understand that having multiple credits and (hopefully) a tuition deduction can be confusing for students and families, and I support efforts to simplify these benefits. I'm aware that, according to a GAO study, 27% of all eligible filers did not claim either the tuition deduction or the tax credits in past tax years. While this makes a good case for consolidation, I would urge caution that any legislation the Subcommittee or Full Committee considers not eliminate any students or families currently receiving a tax benefit. It would certainly be counterproductive to increase taxes on many in the middle-class in order to bring down the cost of a bill intended to help families access higher education tax benefits. I recognize that many Members of Congress and the American public have real questions about why college cost so much. Parents are increasingly anxious about how they will pay for their children's education. Private colleges and universities have recently undertaken extensive efforts to increase transparency and to provide access to extensive information for parents and students. In September 2007, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities launched U-CAN--the University and College Accountability Network--in response to the call of public policy makers for more user-friendly information about colleges. Though only seven months old, the U-CAN Website, www.ucan-network.org, has already become a busy gathering place for families seeking specific college information. Over 670 private colleges are participating and the list continues to grow. Over 707,000 pages have been viewed so far by more than 236,000 visitors. We hope that if families see how much aid is available, and understand the range of pricing structures even just within the private college sector, some of that anxiety will be alleviated. Some have argued that Federal assistance--whether it be Pell Grants, other forms of student aid, or tax benefits--has the effect of driving up tuition. The Department of Education has done extensive research over the past 10 years on the relationship of assistance to tuition, and each study showed that Federal assistance is unrelated to private college tuition.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ The Impact of Federal Student Financial Assistance on College Tuition Levels (1997). Study of Costs and Prices (2001). Issues of Cost and Price in Higher Education (2001). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At its simplest level, prices have gone up because our annual costs have gone up, and because we are providing more services than ever. The principal cost drivers--health insurance, utilities, and financial aid--remain constant year to year. Institutions are undertaking efforts to counteract the effects of these rising costs, including innovative affordability and cost-cutting initiatives. There is, however, no single approach, because of differences in institutions' missions, student population, and fiscal resources. At Nichols College, we offer both merit-based and need-based grants and scholarships to our students. As mentioned, 89% of our students receive Nichols College aid. The average Nichols student receives $11,902 in college aid and most qualify for some federal and/or state grants, work and loan programs for a total average aid package of $17,428 (including Nichols-funded programs). Our College does extensive outreach programs by providing education and information on access to at-risk populations through programs like Kids to College and GEAR UP. Our Admissions and Financial Aid staff are active in the community facilitating dozens of financial aid information sessions, both on campus and across the state, including parent education on tuition tax benefits. In response to Rep. McKeon's concern about transfer credits and affordability, at Nichols College we have recently begun to work with community colleges to offer an ``A to B'' program--Associate's to Bachelor's. For example, at Quinsigamond Community College, with whom we signed our first agreement, students may earn an Associate's degree, then take an agreed-upon third year of study at the community college before transferring to Nichols College and earning their Bachelor of Science in Business Administration degree. This program provides access to a Nichols College degree for students who may not otherwise be able to afford it. We also offer our Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSBA) and Master of Business Administration (MBA) programs entirely online. Nichols also belongs to multiple consortia to reduce costs such as purchasing consortia and the Independent College Enterprise (ICE), which is a nonprofit consortium for our shared administrative software. For example, joining ICE saved Nichols College about $800,000 in implementation costs, and we estimate another $100,000 in annual costs. We are trying to reduce energy costs by upgrading to environmentally- friendly systems. As a business school, we understand offering a quality education while running lean and mean! Efforts such as this at Nichols and colleges across the country, combined with tax benefits, offer much-needed additional assistance for families in saving and paying for a quality higher education experience. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Subcommittee and Full Committee continue their commitments to our students and our institutions by retroactively extending both the tuition deduction and the IRA charitable rollover. In addition, I urge members to make permanent the important provisions that will expire at the end of 2010, including Section 127--employer-provided education assistance, the improvements made to the Student Loan Interest Deduction, and the preferential tax treatment of Education Savings Accounts. In return, I offer the continued commitment of private institutions, like Nichols, to advance and improve our own internal efforts to control costs and increase transparency. This partnership, between Congress and institutions of higher education, will allow us to continue to provide the best college education available in the world, as we prepare today's students to be tomorrow's leaders. Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Dr. Townsley. Dr. Watson. STATEMENT OF WAYNE WATSON, PH.D., CHANCELLOR, CITY COLLEGES OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Mr. WATSON. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Neal, Ranking Member English, and Members of the Subcommittee, including Chicago's own Rahm Emanuel. I am Dr. Watson, Chancellor of the City Colleges of Chicago, which enrolls more than 110,000 students annually. I am here today representing my colleges and the American Association of Community Colleges, which represents the nation's nearly 1,200 community colleges. Many policy makers are still surprised to learn that our colleges enroll 47 percent of all U.S. undergraduates. Unfortunately, the tax incentives for post-secondary education simply do not work for the financially disadvantaged college students who need this help the most. A 2003 study by Harvard researcher, Bridget Long, found that existing tax credits have had no impact on increasing college enrollment. A common thread runs between urban and rural America, and that common thread is poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education. In 2006, rural areas tended to have higher rates of poverty--15.2 percent--than urban areas, 11.8 percent, regardless of race. For students whose families live on or below the poverty line, their personal resources are dedicated to survival needs like food and shelter. Their decision to place education at the bottom of the priority list is not a choice, but more a lack of a choice. The bridge that can help solve both urban and rural America poverty is America's community colleges, and we believe that some fairly simple changes to the Tax Code can alter the lack of access to post secondary education by needy students that needs to be a national priority. As our written testimony outlines, access and success in college remain highly correlated with income. With this by way of context, let me outline three key principles. First, major items in the Code of higher education finance provision need to be consolidated. Although the Hope, and Lifetime Learning Credits, and the tuition deduction share the common goals of helping students pay for college, these programs differ from--differ in the amount and type of expenses they cover. Since costs are essentially the same for students as they move through college, the assistance available should remain the same. The current patchwork of tax programs led the GAO to conclude that post-secondary tax incentives are difficult for families to understand and use. In fact, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers fail to claim their tax preferences to which they are entitled, and often do not even claim the preference that would be most advantageous. Chairman Rangel is pursuing overall tax reform, and these provisions cry out to be included. Second, the higher education provisions must reflect total student expenditures. The Hope, Lifetime Learning credits and tuition deduction only cover tuition. This is profoundly unfair to community college students. For them, tuition is only a small component of their overall college costs. The average tuition cost to a community college student tuition is $2,361 per year, while the total average cost of attendance is more than $13,000. The exclusion of non-tuition expenses contradicts long-standing Higher Education Act policies, as well as the Code to college savings provisions. Third, higher education tax incentives should better assist financially disadvantaged students and be refundable. The current tax incentive provides the bulk of the benefits to students coming from middle-income and more affluent families. While these students can use the help, it rarely makes the difference as to whether they will attend college. According to AACC's estimates, 1.3 million community college students had no tax liability in 2007. AACC urges enactment of the Universal Higher Education and Lifetime Earning Act, because it efficiently consolidates the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits and tuition deduction. Its $3,000 tax credit would increase benefits for all students, thus increasing college assets and reducing borrowing. It uses the Higher Education Act student aid budgets for eligible expenses. This provides consistent treatment across the major Federal funding sources for college, and will treat students attending low tuition colleges more fairly. This will also enhance program administration. Lastly, H.R. 2458 makes the new credit 50 percent refundable. This Tax Code currently denies help to those who need it most, precisely because they are too poor. Please note the AACC supports full refundability, but the legislation provision will represent a substantial advance. I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and will be happy to answer any of your questions. [The statement of Wayne Watson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.072 Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Dr. Watson. Dr. Dynarski. STATEMENT OF DR. SUSAN DYNARSKI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS Ms. DYNARSKI. Thank you. Chairman Neal, Ranking Member English, and Members of the Committee, I am honored to testify before you today. First thing I want to say is that a college education is a good investment. Over a lifetime, a worker with a bachelor's degree earns, on average, about $1 million more than a worker with just a high school degree. Despite this fact, college remains out of reach for many: 34 percent of young white people earn a BA, but only 19 percent of African-Americans and 10 percent of Hispanics grab that golden ticket. Now, I give you these statistics to get us thinking about how we can best use tax incentives to encourage college attendance. Tax incentives can increase schooling only if they put money into the hands of kids for whom price is a barrier to college. For tax breaks to truly act as tax incentives, they need to cut the price of college for those students who would not go to college without the subsidy. Now, who are these potential college students? They are disproportionally non-white or Hispanic. They are from low- income families--just half of low-income youth go to college right after high school, compared to 80 percent of their upper- income classmates. Where might they go to school? The local community college, where tuition and fees average $2,300 or a State university, where costs average $6,200 a year. Now, this is who we should keep in mind, as we design tax incentives to get people into college: a low-income person attending an inexpensive public college. The fortunate student who is admitted to Yale or Williams or Swarthmore, whose family earns upward of $100,000 is going to go to some college with or without a tax incentive, and I feel that we should not build our education policy around the prices that this student faces. Now, as currently structured, the education tax incentives do just about nothing for low-income students at inexpensive public colleges. Because the tax incentives, first of all, are not refundable, many low-income families can't get them. A family of four needs to have an income above $40,000 to get the maximum tax credit right now. One-third of all families and half of families with kids have no tax liability and cannot get an education tax credit, currently. Only students who pay tuition and fees over $10,000 a year can get the full Lifetime Learning credit. That's nearly double the cost of the typical four-year college, and four times that of the typical community college, right? Now, nearly 75 percent of college students attend these inexpensive public colleges. The tuition deductions are least valuable to those in the lower tax brackets. A $1,000 tuition deduction is worth $330 for somebody in the 33 percent bracket, but it's only worth $150 for somebody in the 15 percent bracket. The regressivity of the tax incentives is not all that hampers their effectiveness. They're just too complicated and confusing to actually affect schooling decisions. Families simply can't respond to a price subsidy if they don't understand it or know about it. Again, let's keep our target students firmly in mind, those in the margin of college entry are disproportionately low- income, non-white, Hispanic, parents did not go to college, or perhaps even graduate from high school. For many of these families, English is a second language. And viewed in this context, it's clear that the tax incentives are currently too complicated to do the intended job. As was noted before, the publication devoted to explaining them is 80 pages long. It may be clearly written, but the fact that you need 80 pages to explain these incentives is prima facie evidence that they're too complicated. So, here is what I suggest: that we focus the incentives on those who are on the margin of attending college, and we simplify the incentives so that families can understand and respond to them. So, number one, as has already been proposed, I would suggest creating a single, refundable tax credit for tuition, fees, room, and board. A single credit would significantly reduce complexity and enable families to estimate their credit well in advance. Make the credit refundable, so families in the lower tax brackets can access it. Count tuition, fees, room, and board as eligible expenses for the purposes of the credit. This matches the definition used by the 529 and the Coverdell accounts, which are available to upper-income families. It also extends the full credit to the vast majority of students who do attend public colleges. Second, deliver the credit at the time of college enrollment. The student who needs the credit most is the one who drops out because she can't find the money to pay the registrar in September, all right? She is not helped by a credit that arrives a year or 14 months after the bills are due. So we need to put our heads together and find a way to get these credits to students at the time of enrollment. Otherwise, we're excluding the very students whose enrollment depends on the credit, and that's no way to design an incentive program. There are a number of Federal aid programs that pay college students prospectively, rather than after the fact, as the credits do, but like the Pell Grant, and the Stafford Loan. Veterans education benefits and the now-defunct Social Security student benefit program all paid students at the time of enrollment, rather than after the fact. One suggestion is to use income from a previous year to determine eligibility for the credit. So eligibility for the credit for the 2008-2009 school year could be based on 2007 income. This is the approach used in determining eligibility for the Pell Grant and the Stafford Loan. We could even more radically simplify Federal benefits for college by consolidating all of the Federal subsidies for college students into one streamlined system. College students and their families now face two parallel, duplicative, and unwieldy bureaucracies that provide aid for college: the tax system and the aid system. Consolidating this process would substantially simplify life for the families of college students, saving them tens of millions of hours now spent filling out repetitive and mind-numbing forms. Consolidation would also save billions of tax and tuition dollars that are essentially spent moving pieces of paper back and forth between different agencies of the Federal Government, back and forth between IRS and the Department of Education. And I have entered into the record a detailed simplification proposal that I have written in coordination with my coauthor, Judith Scott Clayton. It's in the record for your perusal. Thank you, and I am happy to take any questions. [The prepared statement of Susan Dynarski follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.082 Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Ms. Dynarski. Mr. Ebersole. STATEMENT OF W. DANIEL EBERSOLE, DIRECTOR, GEORGIA OFFICE OF TREASURY AND FISCAL SERVICES, ATLANTA GEORGIA Mr. EBERSOLE. Thank you, Chairman Neal, Ranking Member English, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Dan Ebersole. I'm the Director of the Georgia Office of Treasury and Fiscal Services, which is the State Treasury of Georgia. My office also administers the path to college 529 plan, Georgia's 529 college savings plan, which currently has over $600 million in assets. And I am also the Chair of the College Saving Plan's Network. CSPN is an affiliate of the National Association of State Treasurers, and represents the interest of State-operated 529 college savings and prepaid tuition plans since 1991. The mission of the network is to encourage families to save for college, and to help make higher education an affordable reality for all. To accomplish this mission, CSPN is the leading national advocate for strengthening and enhancing college savings plans, and we welcome the opportunity to work with Congress as you strive to make higher education and Section 529 programs even more accessible to all American families. Beginning in the 1990s and through today, the States working with Congress have been instrumental in creating and improving 529 plans. 529 plans are enormously successful, allowing millions of families to pre-pay or save for college. Every state in the nation and the District of Columbia offer these plans. We have seen growth from 2.6 million accounts in 2001 to over 10.5 million accounts by the end of last year. Assets invested by these families and these plans have grown over that same period from $15 billion to $130 billion. As part of this growth, it is important to ensure that families at all income levels are encouraged to save in 529 accounts. Because states are involved in the establishment and administration of these plans, we ensure that outreach efforts target all segments of the population, including those not typically reached. The states leverage their experience as major institutional investors to establish low-cost, low-fee college savings investment options for families, and ensure, for example, that a low initial investment in the range of, say, $25--like in the Georgia plan--is all it takes to open an account. I would like to note that the states continue to seek new and innovative ways to attract underserved populations to participate in 529 programs. For example, in Illinois, State Treasurer, Alexi Giannoulias, committed $3.5 million in scholarships to Illinois students, including $2.8 million in need-based grants, awarding up to 400 scholarships each year, and almost 3,000 scholarships to Illinois students through the life of the program. In Pennsylvania, the State has developed an innovative program that makes use of individual development accounts to encourage college savings through 529 plans. Finally, Massachusetts emphasizes outreach using grassroots marketing initiatives targeting low to mid-income families through early college savings seminars, financial aid seminars, and educational events, such as literacy events at boys and girls clubs, reading events at public libraries across Massachusetts. Given all the success of 529 plans, we believe that there is still room for improvement in the Federal tax treatment of these plans, specifically treating computers as an allowable expense for Section 529 plans which would conform and simplify the treatment across different types of education incentives. Now, in a Coverdell plan, a kindergartner can get a computer as an allowed expense, but not in a 529 plan. We would also like to see 529 plan contributions by lower- income families eligible for a saver's tax credit. And we believe that more can be done in the employer/employee context using 529 plans as a vehicle as either a training program for the employee, or as an employee benefit. In conclusion, thank you for allowing me to testify today. States have worked hard to make sure Section 529 plans encourage families to save early, providing pre-payment of tuition and low-cost investment options paired with low- investment minimums to ensure that everyone who wants to go to college has a vehicle to save for college. And finally, I want to touch on one aspect of Section 529 plans which is less concrete, but nonetheless, very important. When families put savings in a Section 529 plan for a newborn, a 5-year-old, or even a 15-year-old, that family is sending a very important message to the child, that the family believes that the child can and will go to college. A college education remains the surest path to success and higher achievement. Saving early in a Section 529 account sends a powerful and positive message to our children, that they can and should go to college. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of W. Daniel Ebersole follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2697A.090 Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Ebersole. Dr. Townsley, you have said that one-half of your students may be eligible for the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits. Since we have heard so many eligible families miss out, do your financial aid advisors help these families in any way to ensure that they get the maximum credit available? Ms. TOWNSLEY. Well, we do training. Our financial aid office and admissions staff do training on FAFSA. And when-- because that's where we see it reported, whether or not they might have claimed that, is on the FAFSA line. So, we offer to all of our families, prospective parents and current parents, training on how to fill out the FAFSA. And we mention that when we get to that section there are opportunities to apply for the Hope and Lifetime credit, or tuition benefit deduction. That's how we do it with our families. Chairman NEAL. Okay. And, Dr. Watson, as you know, many of us are very supportive of extending and expanding these tax benefits. But we are also operating under, now, some very significant budget constraints which certainly don't appear to be improving any time soon. Which of the tax benefits do you think provides the most benefit to your community college students and their families? Mr. WATSON. Well, we have to take a look at our students. Our average--you know, one-fifth of our students are below the poverty level. So they do not make enough money to even be eligible for some of the tax credits, because they do not pay taxes. Of course, Pell Grant is out there. But in terms of the tax credits, I guess I would say the Hope. Chairman NEAL. The Hope? Okay. Mr. WATSON. But I must also say that it is possible--and I highly commend, you know, what you have done back in 1997, the intent was there--but as Congressman Rahm Emanuel stated, you know, it's now time to enhance it. And we can consolidate it. It's possible to consolidate the Hope Credit, Lifelong Learning Credit, and the tax deduction. And I feel kind of--not at ease, because you're, like, asking me to choose between three children, you know? And after hearing your---- Chairman NEAL. Two or three Congressman. Mr. WATSON. Three Congressman? Okay. But after hearing your statement, Sir, when you opened up, I mean, you're like the poster child. I want to take you and put you on a poster for what you're doing. It is possible to consolidate it. The parents of the poorest kid--and a lot of our kids are just independent, they're 19, 20 years of age, they're living on their own, they don't have parents they are living with, you know? And then, the parents like yourself, they need all three. Education is expensive. This $13,000 total, when you look at all of the expenses for a community college student, our students are actually making choices between eating and going to college, between shelter and going to college, between taking care of their child and going to college. And when you have to make those choices, you know? And, on top of it all, they still make the choice to go to college, and to eat a little bit less, or they move in with somebody. Chairman NEAL. In an earlier conversation this morning with Dr. Townsley, we talked extensively about the role of the community college in America's future. And I think there is one thing that there is almost universal agreement upon, and that is that the community college is going to continue to play a more important role annually in resolving many of the issues that you have raised. I don't think there is any question about it. So, you have great advocacy here, on behalf of the role the community college plays in America. Mr. WATSON. I mean, community college is--you know, they were the hallmark or milestone set in 1946, when President Truman came up with the Truman Commission. And at that time he put forth that community colleges are really the answer to getting America back on their feet after World War II. And at that time, it was his goal on the Truman Commission to make college education either free or minimally a cost. And he really struck out hard. And I commend Congress for, over the years--for struggling to do that. But I think that now it is almost 50 years exactly--no, it's not 50. Well, it's almost 60 years where we have an opportunity to take what President Truman tried to put forth in the Truman Commission, and see if we can enhance it again and make education, both community college, four-year colleges affordable. And I also represent the board of NAFEO. That's the National Association for Equal Education. That's 112 historically black colleges. I also represent that board, making it possible for all of these colleges and universities to put young men and ladies through college, so that we can compete nationally and internationally. Chairman NEAL. Thank you. I am always very proud of the fact that it was California and Massachusetts that made pioneering commitments long before it was a well known achievement, the role that the community college would play in American life. Dr. Dynarski, I was very interested in your suggestion that we can deliver these credits in advance, rather than a year later, when the taxpayer files the annual tax return. How would you suggest that the IRS administer an advance credit? Ms. DYNARSKI. I was speaking--I could punt this to Michael Brostek. He had some ideas. I was speaking to him before the testimony. There are a couple of programs that IRS runs right now that are run through organizations that could provide a template for what we would do here. So, right now, you know, the Pell, the Stafford, they are advanced, right? And what we do is we use the colleges to confirm that the student has enrolled. And if the student doesn't enroll, the money is withdrawn, all right? So I think what we would need to do is use the institutions themselves to basically administer the funds. So, eligibility would run through IRS, but funds would flow through the institutions themselves. Chairman NEAL. Simple enough. And with that, I would yield to Mr. English. Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to quiz a panel that has, I think, offered us some very stimulating testimony. First of all, Dr. Townsley, we have been told by some experts that parents and students are aware of the Pell Grants and financial aid available. However, many don't know about the education tax credits. When Nichols sends information to prospective students and their parents about possible sources of financial aid, how do you inform them about the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits? Ms. TOWNSLEY. Well, as I mentioned, we do it through training sessions at all of our open houses. We have training sessions on financial aid. We have orientation, we have students and families there. We do training sessions, again, for parents and students, and we cover the FAFSA and how to fill it out. When we get to that section, we mention that they should look into those opportunities on their tax form, because they would be able to fill that in on FAFSA, as well. So, we do it through all of our training sessions, at open houses, at orientations with students and their parents, and also when we do training at high schools across the State. We send our financial aid staff out to do that. Mr. ENGLISH. Very good. I was curious. Elsewhere in your testimony you urge the prompt and retroactive extension of the charitable IRA provision that expired last year. I am just curious. How does extending the provision retroactively create any incentive for new donations? Ms. TOWNSLEY. Well, I think if it was within this year, it would help us to be able to offer that currently to our donors. I would actually call my board member right away and say, ``Okay, it's time for the scholarship, you can do it.'' Mr. ENGLISH. Okay. Mr. Ebersole, under the present law, education tax benefits are received after filing one's tax return in April. But the tuition is usually due in the fall of the prior year. As a result, there is a considerable lag between the time the cost is incurred and the credit is received. We have noted this for a long time. This lag may prevent the tax credit from fully achieving its goal of making college accessible for more students. I am curious. Would making the tax credit advanceable solve this problem? And would an advanceable credit be easy for the IRS to administer? Mr. EBERSOLE. I am here representing the 529 college savings plans. Mr. ENGLISH. I understand. Mr. EBERSOLE [continuing]. I don't think I am the one who is able to answer your questions. Mr. ENGLISH. Would anyone like to comment on it? Ms. TOWNSLEY. I will comment. When you talk about the advance tax credit? Mr. ENGLISH. Yes. Ms. TOWNSLEY. The--I think a private school like Nichols and the Association of Private Independent Colleges and Universities, we would take the position that to do it up front would be a very difficult thing to accomplish. Student aid comes up front. We do have systems in place to manage that. If we had to do the up-front tax, I think we would probably have to hire another staff member to carry that out. And when we look at the higher education reauthorization, one of the things that we do have concerns about is the additional reporting. And the more and more reporting---- Mr. ENGLISH. Sure. Ms. TOWNSLEY [continuing]. That we have to do, the more and more costs go up, because we need people to actually fill all those things out, because we do run lean and mean. Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Dr. Townsley. Ms. DYNARSKI. Could I comment on that? Mr. ENGLISH. Also for the panel, the Lifetime Learning credit is calculated as a percentage of eligible educational expenses. This gives, I suppose, a greater tax benefit to those who go to more expensive schools. Dr. Watson, you obviously represent an institution with a mission to reach out to a very broad cross-section. In your view, is this an appropriate way to structure the credit? Mr. WATSON. Well, our average tuition and fees is $2,260. And a number of our students are not eligible, or fully eligible, for the Hope tax credit. And I think that we do need to take this into consideration, that--and one way to take it into consideration is to expand it beyond just tuition and fees. We need to make books, transportation, supplies, housing eligible under the Hope tax credit. Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Dr. Watson. Now, again, would anyone else like--before my time completely runs out--to take a run at the design of the tax benefit, and specifically the fact that that Lifetime Learning credit right now provides a greater tax benefit to those who go to more expensive schools? Is that the appropriate way to structure the credit? Ms. DYNARSKI. I would say that the student who is deciding between whether to go to college or not is going to a community college. So we would want to focus our efforts and our funds on that type of student. So, a structure that gives more money to people who are going to the most expensive schools, no. I don't think that's the right way to structure it. Okay, I would also like to answer a question that you asked a few minutes ago about the advanceability of the credit. Mr. ENGLISH. Yes. Ms. DYNARSKI. I agree. It would be hard to deliver the funds up front. But it is incredibly important. It's the whole point, is to make it possible for students to go to school. They need the money when they register for college. They don't need it a year-and-a-half later. So, yes, it's the hardest part, but it's the part that would actually make it possible for people to go to school who can't afford it right now. And so, I think, given the brain power that exists in this room and in the colleges and universities of our country, we can find a way to make this work, and we should find a way to make it work. Mr. ENGLISH. I think both of your answers are thoughtful and well-rounded, and I think we're going to have to wrestle with that. Thank you so much. Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. English. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. McDermott, will inquire. Mr. MCDERMOTT. The more I listen, the more confused I think my 30-year-old secretary is about what's available. The question that I think--I am old enough to remember when University of California was absolutely free, and when we invested millions of dollars in this country in the GI Bill of Rights, when we were pouring investment into education. And it has been a gradual process over the last few years to gradually shift the cost onto the student, and leave the student in debt when they get out of college. And I--it seems to me that one of the problems here is that we have shifted some of our educational benefits over to the military. ``Please join the military. And if you join the military, well then we will give you some tax benefits, or we will give you some money to go to college,'' as though our only way of having a volunteer army is to somehow make it harder for somebody to simply go to school, but a lot easier if they want to go the military route and pick up the benefits. And what I am concerned about is the fact that we seem unable to figure out what the people--there are about 26 million families living at poverty or below in this country. Now, their kids cannot--this IRA business, that's just nonsense, to talk about IRAs with them, or that their parents should have been putting something in the bank on the way while they were growing up. All those programs are designed for middle class and above. The question is, what's the best program to help--if you were designing--blank sheet of paper. What is the best program to give--to deal with the people who are under $40,000 median income, and who either themselves are trying to go, or trying to help one of their kids go? I would like to hear what you think the best thing we could do in that regard, to deal with them, because the ones who got money to start when their kid is one year old and putting money in an IRA, you know, I am worried about them, but not very worried in comparison to what I am worried about with this whole, huge bunch of kids who are afraid to go to college because they're going to get in debt, so they say, ``Let's go in the military and see how it works out.'' So, I would like to hear your best proposal. Any one of you. Ms. DYNARSKI. I will jump in. I think the best system--and I agree, it would not be the one we have right now--is one that is transparent, simple, and certain. You want families to know, when their child is in grammar school, that college is affordable. We have got money spread across dozens of programs at this point in the Tax Code and on the revenue side. And pooling those funds into one, simple certain program I think could make for a very powerful incentive. So, I would love to see basically pooling the money that we're spending on the tax incentives with the money that we're spending on the Pell Grant and the other campus programs into one super program that we can communicate simply to students and say, up front, ``You've got $7,000 a year for college. That's enough to cover, you know, a 4-year university, State university,'' and you know that when you're in grammar school, and you know that when you're graduating from high school. Application could be through the tax form itself, just to check off on the tax form, and basically base it on income and on family size, and those would be the criterion. If you look at the financial aid formula, really what drives almost all of it is income and family size. The other 125 questions on the financial aid form don't really have much of an effect on the Pell Grant. So, put it together with the tax expenditures that we're using right now, and make one, super-effective program. Mr. WATSON. Sir, I think we have made a major step, or right on the verge of getting ready to make a major step with regards to the Universal Higher Education and Lifetime Learning Act. That's a major step, if we were to do that, the consolidation, raising it to $3,000, non-tuition being included, and 50 percent refundable. Now, being that you gave me a blank check, though, I would make that 100 percent refundable, all right? And I would think that we would have done the Truman Act a major a complement 60 years later. In terms of combining the tax credits with the Pell Grant, I would be hesitant to at this point, just because of the fear of the bureaucracy that might follow along with it. I would like to keep them separate at this point. But if we are able to do the Universal Higher Education and Lifetime Learning Act, and change it from 50 percent to 100 percent, this congress would have made a major step in helping the 40 million individuals that you spoke of. Mr. MCDERMOTT. Do you run your own program of Pell Grants, or do you put it out into the banks? University of Washington runs their own Pell Grant. They don't have a bank intermediary. What do you do, in the community college system in Chicago? Mr. WATSON. We have the Stafford Loan, and we give out very, very few loans. But in terms of Pell Grants---- Mr. MCDERMOTT. The student loans question is what I'm asking you. Mr. WATSON. Oh, so you're talking about loans? Oh, okay. Very few loans. We do not encourage our students to take out loans. Let me be very clear on this one. The City Colleges of Chicago made a list that came out about two weeks ago, saying that there are some colleges that are not encouraging their students to take loans. We are one of those colleges, because we see thousands, tens of thousands of students come to us after having attended schools where they have $19,000, $20,000 in loans, and still have not graduated from college. We are a community college, and we are there for the purpose of trying to get young men and young ladies through college without a debt. You can attend the City Colleges of Chicago and attend all two years and not have to take out a loan. Our tuition is $2,200 per year. And with Pell Grant, and if we're able to do this with the Universal Higher Education and Lifetime Learning Act, with the change that is being proposed, loans are not necessary for my cohort of students with the AACC--that's 1,200 colleges, that is 46 percent of all students in higher education. It would not be necessary, Sir, except for those very, very select programs. So, I don't want to mislead you and say, ``Well, there are no loans.'' I do have some programs where students must take loans, because the programs are extremely expensive: dental hygiene, a very, very expensive program. Other than that, I would say 80 percent of my programs we do not encourage it. Ms. TOWNSLEY. Representative McDermott, I would take the same position as my colleague in the community colleges. I think that that would benefit students greatly. I would also encourage that we do maintain opportunities for middle income families as well, who are trying to send their children to school. That is the real beauty, I think, of American higher education, is that there is diversity in choice in higher education. And at Nichols, we work strongly with the community colleges through articulation agreements. And so, students that might not have an opportunity to go all four years certainly can start at a community college and have great savings. And, in fact, in some community colleges--we have begun in Massachusetts to work on what we're calling an A-to-B program, which is an associate to bachelor's program, and students can take certain courses through the community college that we have agreed to ahead of time for three years. And they earn an associate's plus one year. And then, the fourth year, they can transfer to Nichols College and they can either do it online--because we have our programs online at a lower cost--they can come for the residential experience in the last year if they would like, which is obviously the most expensive option, or they could take classes in the evening, which, again, is a relatively low cost. And the students then have the opportunity to earn an associate's and a private school bachelor's and business administration degree from Nichols College. So, we do work closely with community colleges. A lot of my colleagues in private higher education do. So I would encourage that we maintain those benefits across all levels and income groups for opportunity. Chairman NEAL. Thank you. We can come back if there is time at the end. Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. McDermott, very much. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Larson, is recognized. Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for putting together these very thoughtful panels. Continuing along a similar line of questioning that Mr. McDermott had, what kind of shape are our computer labs in, in our community college systems today? Mr. Watson, would you be-- -- Mr. WATSON. Yes, Sir. You know, you have heard of unfunded mandates, and that is something that community colleges and universities are pretty much faced with. There is software upgrades that we must do, in order to respond to the GAO, and all of the different bodies that ask us for reams of data every year. And we must upgrade. Those software upgrades cost tens of millions of dollars to each community college. That is an unfunded mandate. There are under-funded mandates, which gets to your question, and that is in order for our students to remain competitive internationally and nationally, and just for locally, sometimes, we are being put in a situation where we have to turn over our hardware, like every four to five years. That is expensive, Sir. And there is no--there are very few funding sources that make revenue available to us. Mr. LARSON. So you have got a serious infrastructure problem that is both under-funded and mandated but not funded at all. Now, if I could take that a step further, when I was looking at your statistics, Mr. Watson, you were saying how-- you were comparing how 80 percent of a particular socio- economic group goes on to higher education, whereas 40 percent of a lower socio-economic group goes. Well, if you do the math, that means 60 percent or 20 percent. Where are those students, or those individuals going, who don't go to colleges? And where do they get their training to facilitate a lifetime of work in a global economy? And if our community colleges don't have appropriate labs and are able to provide the transition and don't become what I fear is just a minor league for the college system, where you can't afford to go to college, well, if you spend a few years in the minors you will be okay and then we can matriculate you on up, but it still leaves out a vast majority of people not only who seek to enter college or higher education every year, but those that are in the work force currently, untrained and without skills, in a global economy that is shrinking as fast as technology and innovation can make it. Would community colleges be open to keeping--if they were funded, keeping their buildings open during the evening for the retraining of individuals within the community? Because, as you noted, the level of technology changes, and skill levels, and whether it's IT or IP, or how people are going to process information, it's changing rapidly all the time. And if our community colleges aren't the facile, flexible means of dealing with this, where are we? And what do you think that cost would be to, say, on weekends or---- Mr. WATSON. That's right. Mr. LARSON [continuing]. Three nights a week, to keep the colleges open, and make sure that they had appropriate labs and teachers to do the training? Any idea what---- Mr. WATSON. Yes. Right now, my community college--and I can speak for the other 1,200 community colleges--we are now opening our doors on the weekends and at night. We all have night school, we all have weekend programs. The Borough of Manhattan Community College, they have 8,000 students taking courses on the weekend, all right, 8,000 students. You know, we, City Colleges of Chicago, have thousands of students taking courses on the weekend, and we are to a point right now where we're open at 8:00 in the morning until 10:00 every night. We are now working out a plan where we are thinking about going up to 12:00 at night, in order to meet the need. We, Sir, as you have clearly stated, we are that economic engine that can get America back to work. No question about it. We are it. You know, my---- Mr. LARSON. Where do you get the resources from, then? Mr. WATSON. You know, and we have made a mistake, as community colleges. We are like the ``Mikey'' at the table, you know. ``Feed it to Mikey, he will eat it.'' And the reason why I say it's a mistake is because we always make do, to make sure that we try not to ever turn anybody away. And we have taken our dollars over the last decades, and we have not turned students away. And we have raised tuition--and you've seen the creeping tuition of community colleges--we are up to $72. You know, when my father attended my community college--my father--my grandfather gave my father $10. He said, ``You go up there and get enrolled, and bring back the change.'' And that was a full enrollment, all right? We have gone a long way from that. We have to charge more tuition to our students. We are $72, some of my sister community colleges are $110. But you also said something else, Sir, I must address. And I really thank you for the opportunity. You said that some community colleges, we don't want them to become second-class schools, well individuals say, ``Well, we will just go to a community college because we can't go to a regular college.'' I am very proud to share with you that just approximately three weeks ago there was a national competition between universities and community colleges. It was a scholastic competition. And I can't give you more details, because it's going to be on television, and the network will shoot me. But I will just say that the community college beat out eight universities and colleges in a national scholastic competition. And I said more than what I should say. I will talk to you privately and tell you exactly what it was, but I can't say it here. So, I am only getting to the point of saying that community colleges--the word ``junior college'' was created in 1901 by William Rainey Harper, the president of the University of Chicago. We have gone from junior college in 1901 to community colleges, which was created by Truman in 1946. We are legitimate, two-year institutions that, as my college stated, we matriculate students. And research shows that students who come to us for the first two years, they do as well or better than students who start out at a university. And we have an equal or higher rate of success than the junior and senior year. Mr. LARSON. I would agree with all of that. I see my time is up. I thank the chairman. Mr. WATSON. Okay, thank you. Mr. LARSON. But if I could get some numbers--and I will speak with you after the hearing, Mr. Watson, in terms of what you think that that would cost, to upgrade the labs in our schools to make sure the mandates are funded, and then how we can matriculate people into our community colleges, as opposed to having to bring in immigrants to man the jobs that we ought to be training our people for. Mr. WATSON. You're right. You're right, Sir. Chairman NEAL. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley, to inquire. Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for affording me the opportunity. I would just from the outset, Dr. Watson, it sounds like a movie in the making. So I'm paying attention. Listening to the witnesses, it appears that there is strong support amongst you all for making the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits refundable, which are right now non- refundable, to help those students that Dr. Watson made reference to and highlighted before when he said that one in five of his students are below the poverty line. Are you all in agreement that the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits be refundable? Ms. TOWNSLEY. Well---- Mr. CROWLEY. You're all nodding your heads, I just want to--if you could, for the record, just say, ``Yes.'' Ms. TOWNSLEY. Yes, Sir. I--we would be in favor, and private colleges, we have had a discussion around this, and we would be in favor of the refundability, as long as the cost to do the refundable credit is not a burden, and---- Mr. CROWLEY. To the institution. Ms. TOWNSLEY. To the institution. Because then we have to continue to increase costs, which we're trying to hold the line on. Mr. WATSON. We are strongly supportive of the refundability, because a number of our students, because of their income, do not have a liability. They do not pay any taxes. Mr. CROWLEY. Right, okay. Mr. EBERSOLE. We are here on behalf of the college savings plans to promote college savings, and credits are apart from that. So---- Mr. CROWLEY. Well, Harvard, if I could hear from---- Ms. DYNARSKI. Well, I don't represent Harvard. Mr. CROWLEY. Okay. Ms. DYNARSKI. I represent me. Mr. CROWLEY. Okay. Ms. DYNARSKI. But I do support the refundability of the credits, and I do--I want to echo that the colleges are understandably apprehensive about bearing the costs of some new program, that they currently bear the vast bulk of the cost in administering the need-based financial aid system and the tax credits. And so, I understand their fears about any changes to the tax program that would make it even more complicated for them, because they tend to be unfunded complexity. We don't recognize the cost of the complexity in the government programs. They're not on the line, they're not a budget item. They are paid for by billions of dollars by the colleges themselves in running their financial aid offices. So, I would hope that Congress would be cognizant of this in considering any changes. But I also hope that we would be focused on designing a program that is, first and foremost, centered upon the needs of students and their families and, secondarily, on the needs of the institutions that those students attend. Mr. CROWLEY. Well, thank you all. I just want to follow up again on a question by Chairman Neal in regards to the outreach that is being done by colleges as it pertains to students taking advantage of the tax credits. And we have been doing some work, my office along with Chairman Lewis, on the EITC, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and how we can help those who are eligible for those tax credits to access them, as well. And we have been--we've told employers that they have to do more, in terms of outreach. One, do you--should we require--should there be a requirement that schools--is that something that you think would be helpful, in terms of making that outreach to students? I know that, Dr. Townsley, you mentioned that you put it on your FAFSA forms when people are applying to your institution. But I would like to ask if there is anything else that we can be doing--that you all can be doing--in terms of communicating and encouraging those who may be eligible for these tax credits to make access to them. Ms. TOWNSLEY. I think--and the discussion that--it's probably helpful if it is noted on the FAFSA as a note, you know, ``You are eligible,'' so when they're filling it out they will see that, ``Oh, I could have maybe done something.'' Mr. CROWLEY. Okay. Ms. TOWNSLEY. So that might be beneficial, because we have to point it out, because they don't really know what should have gone there. So that might be helpful on the new--when the FAFSA does get redesigned. And then, I think colleges and universities, along with banks, actually, where loans come through, could put it in their literature, as a note. I hate to require more, to be honest. I would say maybe a suggestion. But certainly the FAFSA would bring it right to them. Mr. CROWLEY. Okay, thank you. Mr. WATSON. So, one thing that I would--well, one you're getting ready to do, hopefully, and that is you're going to consolidate the Hope Credit, Lifelong Learning Credit, and the tax deduction, and simplify. That will help immensely. You know, Congressman Rahm Emanuel's and Mr. Camp's--their proposal will help immensely, the simplification and consolidation. And second is my colleagues keep speaking of ``our financial aid advisors,'' you know. Let's be honest. We need to move this one step further. There are high school counselors and advisors. They need to be required to communicate this to every kid that graduates. I run across young men who live in my neighborhood, and I say, ``Are you going to college?'' ``Well, no, no, no, I can't afford to.'' I say, ``Well, are you aware of Pell Grant?'' ``No.'' ``Are you aware of Hope?'' ``No.'' These young men and young ladies, if you were to take a survey of kids that graduated from the high schools in urban and rural America--and I keep connecting the two, because there is no difference between urban and rural America in this country today, the poverty level is the same. The unemployment level is the same. The crime level is the same. The drug usage level is the same. And if those high school counselors were required to give these students information on Pell Grants, Hope, Lifelong Learning Credit, you will see a significant difference. We are basically getting a horse after it leaves the barn. Mr. CROWLEY. Right, right. Well, thank you. And I know my time has expired. I want to thank the Chairman for extending the courtesy, and thank you all for what you do. Ms. DYNARSKI. Thank you. Mr. EBERSOLE. Thank you. Mr. WATSON. Thank you. Ms. TOWNSLEY. Thank you. Chairman NEAL. Thank you very much, Mr. Crowley. Mr. English and I want to thank all of our witnesses today for their thoughtful testimony. It is most helpful. We may have some written follow-up questions, and we hope you will respond promptly. If there are no further comments, this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [Submissions for the Record follow:] Statement of Paul J. LeBlanc, Manchester, NH 03106-1045 You probably do not remember me, but when my wife Pat Findlen and I lived in Springfield we worked on your first congressional campaign. We happily see you in the news from time to time and delight in knowing that you still serve and we had some very small part in helping you get to Washington. I am writing in my role as President of Southern New Hampshire University and as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), I am pleased to endorse the testimony provided by CAEL and M+R Strategic Services to the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures for its hearing on Education Tax Incentives. I would also like to express my strong support of federal tax policy to advance Lifelong Learning Accounts (LiLAs). In New Hampshire and in New England more generally we see an aging demographic and a struggle by employers to find well trained people to sustain economic growth. Conversely, in our work, we see many adult students who struggle to pay for school with little in the way of financial assistance. CAEL, a national non-profit organization dedicated to advancing lifelong learning, developed LiLAs as a strategy to close this financing gap and put education and training within the reach of working adults. I think LiLAs may be one of those groundbreaking, paradigm sifting pieces of legislation and I hope you will support the proposal around federal tax policy before you. LiLAs are an innovation that is needed to build the skills of our current and future workforce. I support the introduction of legislation that would help to put LiLAs within the reach of all working Americans. Statement of B. Russell Lockridge As Vice President and Chief Human Resource Officer for Brunswick Corporation, and a member of the Board of Trustees for the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), I am pleased to endorse the testimony provided by CAEL and M+R Strategic Services to the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures for its hearing on Education Tax Incentives. I would also like to express my strong support of federal tax policy to advance Lifelong Learning Accounts (LiLAs). Investment in education is one of the best ways for companies to help their employees gain new skills and advance in their careers. CAEL, a national non-profit organization dedicated to advancing lifelong learning, developed LiLAs to encourage workers and businesses to co-invest in education and training activities that would meet the demands of the changing global economy while helping more Americans to achieve their career and education goals. We know that adult students often face difficulties in affording the education and training they need to succeed in our country's skills-based economy. CAEL, a national non-profit organization dedicated to advancing lifelong learning, developed LiLAs to encourage workers and businesses to co-invest in education and training activities that would meet the demands of the changing global economy while helping more Americans to achieve their career and education goals. LiLAs are an innovation that is needed to build the skills of our current and future workforce. I support the introduction of legislation that would help to put LiLAs within the reach of all working Americans. Statement of Dr. Shirley Robinson Pippins As President of Suffolk County Community College and a member of the Board of Trustees for the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), I am writing to express my support of testimony provided by CAEL and M + R Strategic Services related to the education tax incentives being considered by your subcommittee, particularly with regard to Lifelong Learning Accounts (LiLAs). With approximately 90% of all new high-wage jobs requiring a college degree or post-secondary training, institutions of higher education serve as vital engines for our economy. As Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board recently stated, ``policies that boost our . . . investment in education and training can help reduce inequality while expanding economic opportunity. A substantial body of research demonstrates that investments in education and training pay high rates of return both to individuals and to the society at large.'' LiLAs are an effective way to ensure that Americans, particularly older Americans, have the resources they need to achieve their career and education goals, and are encouraged to invest in education and training activities that would meet the demands of the changing global economy. On a state and national level, as operating costs at colleges and universities increase more rapidly than family income, and at steeper rates than increases from government funding sources, the opportunity to provide access to higher education for residents, particularly those from low- and moderate-income families, becomes more and more difficult. LiLAs represent a real opportunity to build the skills of our current and future workforce by establishing a commitment between employees and employers which is endorsed and encouraged with federal incentives. I strongly urge the Subcommittee to favorably consider legislation creating Lifelong Learning Accounts on a national scale. Statement of Experience Wave and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning Summary When amending the higher-education tax incentives package, Congress should take into consideration the unique needs of workers at all stages of their careers, including those nearing traditional retirement age, who need to continue their education or retrain for a new career in a different field. Workers of all ages are facing challenges due to a number of factors, including shifting economic conditions, family obligations, and jobs going overseas. The Country's education-related tax policy should be crafted to provide opportunities for workers to overcome these challenges. Lifelong Learning Accounts (``LiLAs'') are one way to address these training and education needs. LiLAs are employer-matched, employee- owned individual educational accounts used to finance workers' education and training. With LiLAs, mature and older workers would have funds available so that they can continue to be productive even though their jobs or personal circumstances have changed. Younger workers would be able to save for education and training to upgrade their knowledge and skills to better position themselves in the labor market. In addition, LiLAs would provide a mechanism for individuals to pursue ``encore'' careers that will last during retirement. Learning new skills can open doors to more fulfilling and potentially lucrative career opportunities. But the ability to do so is often limited, especially for workers who may not qualify for assistance that is traditionally available for younger traditional college-age students. Background This testimony is being submitted by Experience Wave and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (``CAEL''). Experience Wave is a national initiative designed to advance federal and state policies that will facilitate the continued engagement of older adults in work and civic life. Experience Wave, funded by the Atlantic Philanthropies, focuses on the interests of mid-life and older people by promoting policies that remove barriers and provide wider opportunities for older people to continue working when they are willing and able, or re-enter the workforce if they have already retired, enhance lifelong learning for older people and consider the unique needs of mature and older workers who want to advance in or change careers through accessible high quality and affordable education and training, and open doors for older people to engage in meaningful charitable or ``pro bono'' work. CAEL is a national, non-profit organization whose mission is to expand education and training opportunities for adults. CAEL works to remove policy and organizational barriers to learning opportunities, identifies and disseminates effective practices, and delivers value- added services. Since its founding in 1974, CAEL has been providing colleges and universities, companies, labor organizations and state and local governments with the tools and strategies they need for creating practical, effective lifelong learning solutions. CAEL's clients include major employers such as Verizon Wireless, Starbucks, CVS Pharmacy, Pennsylvania State University, and Kentucky Community and Technical College System. Need for Change A significant portion of the Subcommittee's hearing on education tax incentives (May 1, 2008) was devoted to educational opportunities for traditional aged children and their families. However, it is equally important to expand postsecondary education and workforce development opportunities for working adults. During the hearing, Congressman McDermott asked the panel what education-related tax incentives would work best for a hypothetical, single mother of two children; whom he described as a 30-year old secretary making $30,000 and having one year completed at the local community college towards her legal assistant degree. The panelists before the Subcommittee did not have an answer. Congressman McDermott followed up his question by saying that the tax credits and other incentives generally do not work for someone trying to get into a new line of work, just those trying to get ahead within the same industry. The point of Congressman McDermott's hypothetical was to illustrate that tax-related education incentives are too complex. He also highlighted the inadequacy of current education-related tax incentives for working adults: who need training or retraining to increase their future prospects or to adapt to shifting economic conditions. As detailed below, LiLAs would make it possible for that working mother to go back to school and get the credentials she needs to advance in her career and support her family. Recently, while discussing the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, Senator Baucus lamented the lack of investment and training opportunities available to today's workforce. He said, [T]he new global economy conjures images of competition in European, Chinese and Indian markets . . . [W]e can do more to invest in our workforce and make training available to our workers. We can do more to be creative and innovative. We can do more to think about what the competitiveness of our economy and [what our] workers should look like five and 10 years down the road. Challenges posed by globalization and technological change require new workforce strategies.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Congress Daily, ``Baucus, Panel Say National Agenda Is Needed To Compete,'' May 1, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, as the American Society for Training & Development stated in their Fall 2006 publication entitled, ``Bridging the Skills Gap: How the Skills Shortage Threatens Growth and Competitiveness . . . and What to do About It,'' U.S. businesses are finding themselves ill-equipped to compete in the 21st-century economy because too many workers lack the necessary skills to help their business grow and succeed. A part of the solution involves individuals taking responsibility for their own skill development and career development and being proactive in acquiring skills, furthering their education, and committing to lifelong learning. In addition, businesses and the government need to provide support and develop programs that encourage individuals to adapt to the changing landscape. Post-secondary educational attainment is tied to improved employability and higher earning power. Among citizens aged 18-64, for example, those who earn an associate's degree can expect on average an additional $7,000 in annual earnings, and in states like California and Texas, an additional $10,000. Attaining a bachelor's degree adds, on average, $15,000 in annual income, and in some states as much as $18,000. This increase in income level also translates to increased state and federal tax revenues, and a higher skilled workforce that can staff positions of critical importance to the economy, national security, and public health.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Tate, Pamela, ``Testimony on Higher Education in the United States and the Needs of Adult Learners: Recommendations for Strategic Directions,'' January 31, 2006. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once a global leader, the United States is losing its historic world dominance with respect to higher levels of education attainment for its adult citizens. According to figures released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, several countries have already surpassed or are close to surpassing the United States in proportion of 25-64 year olds who have attained a tertiary credential. These countries include Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. In a world economy that depends more than ever on knowledgeable workers, as well as the possession of advanced literacy and problem-solving skills among line workers, the imperative could not be greater for U.S. leaders and policymakers to recognize and strategically address challenges to expanding adult learning.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- But more important that our standing, vis-a-vis other countries, is our ability to staff positions that are of critical importance to the economy, national security, and public health. If our current workforce does not gain new skills and credentials, we may not have enough skilled workers for the growing need. It is estimated that 15 million new U.S. jobs requiring a college education will be created by 2020, but based on current attainment rates, projections show a net gain of only 3 million new workers with college credentials. To meet the skill demands, we cannot only focus on traditional-aged college students-- there will not be enough of them. The nation must also place strategic priority on educating the large number of adults in the workforce who have earned high school credentials, but for one reason or another have not previously entered or completed postsecondary study.\4\ These individuals are more likely than their peers to live in poverty and to be unemployed or working in a low-wage service sector job. Any while many workers are interested in increasing their skills and knowledge, those that do enroll in postsecondary programs are twice as likely to be enrolled part-time and three times as likely as traditional-age students to be enrolled less than half time.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ See id. \5\ See id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another source of workers is older Americans. The United States' workforce demographics are undergoing a tremendous shift. In the next decade, the number of workers over 55 will grow at more than five times the rate of the overall workforce.\6\ But most baby boomers are not planning on going the way of traditional retirement. According to an AARP survey, 79% of baby boomers plan to work in some capacity during their retirement years.\7\ The shifting economic conditions will force many baby boomers to continue to work because their jobs have been downsized or they have not saved enough for retirement. However, others will want to change to less demanding careers or will just want to give back to their community. With the wisdom and experience older Americans bring to table, investing in their education could be a boon for evolving businesses and distressed labor sectors, such as education and health care.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ The Washington Post, ``One More Time, With Meaning,'' January 27, 2008. \7\ The Wall Street Journal, ``Second Acts: Career Paths for Worn- Out Executives,'' April 9, 2008. \8\ See id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With those challenges in mind, we urge the Subcommittee to consider passing tax legislation to stimulate the creation of lifelong learning accounts. Lifelong Learning Accounts As mentioned above, LiLAs are employer-matched, employee-owned individual educational accounts used to finance workers' education and training. The vision is for all workers to contribute to LiLAs and have those contributions matched by their employers--much like a 401(k), but for education and training. LiLA contributions could also be matched by third parties, including philanthropic, federal, state, and local government resources. LiLA's have the following features: Universal Eligibility. All individual workers are eligible for accounts. Broad Use of Funds. Eligible expenses include tuition and fees, supplies, materials, and books. Allowable educational activities include, but are not limited to, studies related to a worker's job or industry and training for a new career. Portability. LiLAs stay with the employee regardless of the person's current employer or employment status. Voluntary Participation. Individuals and employers have the option of participating. Matched Funding. LiLAs are funded through individual contributions, employer matches, and potentially third party funds. Informed Choice. Individual participants choose the training and education they need to meet their career goals that are grounded in an individual learning plan developed with educational/career advisors. CAEL and Experience Wave have been working with leaders across the country to advance policy in support of lifelong learning accounts--in particular federal tax incentives for employer and employee LiLA account contributions. On January 4, 2007, Senator Cantwell introduced a ``demonstration project'' version of this proposal under which up to 200,000 taxpayers who are residents in 10 designated states could participate. The bill, S. 26, has two co-sponsors, Senator Snowe and Senator Collins. Congressman Allen introduced companion legislation, H.R. 2901, on June 28, 2007, which was co-sponsored by Congressman Michaud. The bills are very similar. Both bills establish tax incentives for Lifelong Learning Accounts. The accounts are funded through employee and employer contributions. The employee and the employer both are allowed an income tax credit not to exceed $500 for their account contributions. The account funds would be excluded from taxable income if the funds are spent on higher education expenses. Any amounts withdrawn in excess of the individual's higher education expenses would be included in income and assessed an additional 15 percent tax. In addition, Congressman Emanuel and Congressman Ramstad just introduced a national lifelong learning accounts bill (H.R. 6036). The bill provides tax incentives to participating employees and employers, including a refundable tax credit equal to 50% of the first $500 contributed and 25% of the next $2,000 contributed by the employee. The employee can use the funds in his or her account at any time for education or courses of instruction (including training and apprenticeship programs). These bills are a model of what can be done; the Subcommittee and its Members are free to fashion their own legislative solution. The Success of LiLAs Since 2001, CAEL has launched several pilot LiLA projects in partnership with LiLA champions across the country. These projects have been located in Chicago, northeastern Indiana, San Francisco, Kansas City, and the states of Illinois and Maine. The pilot programs have transformed many participants' lives Here are some examples: Paul Kelvington, a participant in the Chicago demonstration site, set money aside for college while he waited tables. After eighteen years out of school, he is now earning his bachelor's degree with the goal of working in the area of alcohol and drug counseling. ``There are a lot of young kids out there that don't have a positive role model in their lives,'' he says. ``I want to be that type of person and in order to impart wisdom I have to education myself. I want to be able to help people and point them in the right direction.'' The LiLA program helped Paul reach his education goals affordably: ``People should never stop learning. The LiLA program helps you financially and it won't break the bank.'' Becky Miller, a married mother of 9-year-old twin boys, found saving for education difficult before the LiLA program. She was promoted from an assembler to an inspector at ITT Aerospace Industries in Fort Wayne, Indiana while participating in the LiLA demonstration. She says, ``I never had the money to finish [my degree] until the Lifelong [Learning] Account program came around. When I found out I could finish my degree, I was thrilled!'' Becky is now inspired to continue to save--this time for her retirement. Fanni Munoz stated taking English as a Second Language courses from City College of San Francisco as soon as she was accepted into the LiLA program. By improving her language skills, Fanni earned a promotion shortly after she began her classes. After observing Fanni's improved work performance and her high motivation level for increasing her skills, Fanni's supervisor nominated her for the Outstanding Employee Award at UCSF Medical Center. She has achieved two promotions in two and half years. Fanni completed her Human Resource Management Certificate at San Francisco State University, Extended Learning. ``Thanks for LiLA! Without the program, I would not be where I am right now. I can see many more career opportunities in front of me after I have completed the certificate. [It] is such a fantastic program that helps me advance my career!'' \9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Yahoo! News, ``Senators Cantwell and Snowe Introduce Education Account Bill to Make American Workers More Competitive,'' January 8, 2007. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At age 54, Vicki went back to school with the help of a LiLA to pursue her Teaching Certificate. She completed her program in 2004 and is currently pursuing a full-time elementary school teaching position. She says, ``[T]he program is wonderful . . . . [the] LiLA program helped me keep my head above water.'' \10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Due to time constraints, we could not reach the individual for consent to use her story, so a fake name has been substituted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christie, at age 57, used a LiLA to enroll in numerous French language classes because she wanted to add to the authenticity of her French restaurant. Now that she is semi-fluent in French, Christie is in the process of taking other classes, including accounting and a computer course in Lotus, that will help her in the future. Christie says, ``I haven't been back to school for 30 years and going back to any classroom can be intimidating . . . . [O]nce you put your foot in the door and have success, it motivates you to do more. [A LiLA] made this much easier for me.'' \11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Due to time constraints, we could not reach the individual for consent to use her story, so a fake name has been substituted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With a LiLA, the mother working as a legal secretary in Congressman McDermott's hypothetical could have a similar success story as Paul, Becky, Fanni, Vicki, and Christie. And who knows, maybe after working as a legal assistant she will decide to continue her educational pursuits like Christie. Whatever she decides, a LiLA can help her fulfill her dream. Conclusion LiLAs provide employees with the opportunity to increase their future prospects, whether by attaining a higher level of education or by acquiring new skills to meet the demands of a changing economy. We strongly urge the Subcommittee pass legislation to encourage the creation of LiLAs and help adult learners fulfill their dreams. Statement of Joseph B. Moore, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790 As President of Lesley University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), I am pleased to endorse the testimony provided by CAEL and M+R Strategic Services to the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures for its hearing on Education Tax Incentives. I would also like to express my strong support of federal tax policy to advance Lifelong Learning Accounts (LiLAs). In our work, we see many adult students who struggle to pay for school with little in the way of financial assistance. CAEL, a national non-profit organization dedicated to advancing lifelong learning, developed LiLAs as a strategy to close this financing gap and put education and training within the reach of working adults. Our experience with employers also reveals that employees who are enrolled in post-secondary education pursuing a college degree are more reliable and productive employees. The return on the modest financial investment is immediate and substantial. Statement of Reid Cramer I work in the Asset Building Program of the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C. Our work is committed to identifying programs and policies that expand asset ownership in ways that help more Americans achieve economic security, which today, perhaps more than ever, requires access to both income and assets. Clearly, one of the most significant factors in generating these resources is education, particularly post-secondary education. The problem, also clearly stated, is that for many Americans high and escalating tuition costs make it increasingly difficult to afford and access a post-secondary education. In 2007, the total cost of attending a four-year public university jumped to $13,589--an increase that far exceeds the rate of inflation at a time when median wages were largely stagnant. As government and institutional aid fails to keep pace with increased costs, few families can expect to afford higher education expenses out of their existing resources. For families wary of taking on costly and onerous levels of debt, savings has become central to accessing education and training. Accordingly, these costs are especially challenging for families with fewer resources. More than half of academically-qualified low-income students are prevented from attending a four-year college because of cost considerations.\1\ Given rising tuition costs and the value of a college degree, it is imperative to provide all Americans, and especially lower-income families, the opportunity to save for their futures. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Christina Milano (2003). Hearing on ``Expanding Access to College in America: How the Higher Education Act Can Put College Within Reach'' Washington, D.C.: Committee on Education and the Workforce's Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is hard to argue with anyone claiming to be confused by the array of tax incentives the Federal Government has created with the purpose of promoting education, especially when considered along with the broader set of tax expenditures intended to support savings. In general, there is much to be said for reform efforts that consolidate and simply the tax treatment of savings in general and post-secondary educational savings in particular. This should be as part of a larger tax reform effort. One of the fundamental problems with our current approach is that by using the Tax Code, including deductions and the promise of tax-free earnings, we fail to assist many families that could benefit from assistance the most. We should be striving to realize more inclusive policies that create opportunities for all aspiring Americans, regardless of their tax liabilities. This critique applies particularly to one of the newest policies, which has quickly developed into the preeminent savings vehicle for post-secondary education, 529 college savings plans.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Section 529 of the U.S. Tax Code defines the tax rules that govern qualified tuition programs for post-secondary education. These qualified tuition programs are administered by each state, and include prepaid tuition benefit contracts and savings accounts. Most of my comments focus on the accounts held in state-run 529 savings plans. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These 529 savings plans are established and maintained at the state level. Each state plan includes the administration of an account system, the offering of investment options, and the oversight of private-sector investment management. The Federal Government allows for earnings from these personal accounts to be withdrawn tax-free when used to pay for qualified higher education expenses and many states offer additional incentives, such as tax deductions on state income tax calculations. By the end of 2006, deposits in 529 plans exceeded $91 billion--up from just $20 billion four years ago. More than 7.2 million individual accounts have been established, with an average account size of $12,500. Participation in 529 plans is expected to increase rapidly, with total investments expected to exceed $257 billion by 2011. The advent of 529 savings plans reflects the general trend to employ an account-based approach to encourage savings. Still many higher-income families would likely send their children to college even without 529 plans and their tax benefits. For lower-income families, the ability to save for post-secondary education is certainly likely to increase access to post-secondary educational opportunities. Unfortunately, they are not expected to greatly benefit from the tax advantages of the 529 plans. However, there are several promising features of 529 plans which make them a potentially attractive savings platform for families up and down the income scale. I would like to use this testimony to highlight these features and then identify how they could become the basis of a more inclusive savings policy that help provide more Americans, from all income levels, the opportunity to save for their future. Using 529 Plans as a Savings Platform Collectively, these state-run 529 plans have characteristics that make them a powerful tool to facilitate saving. While each state is responsible for constructing their own 529 plan, they all have the following beneficial features: (1) public sector oversight that allows incentives and coordination with other policy efforts; (2) centralized accounting functions; (3) a limited number of investment options; and (4) the ability to cross subsidize between large and small accounts.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Marget Clancey, Reid Cramer, and Leslie Parrish (2005). Section 529 Savings Plans, Access to Post-Secondary Education, and Universal Asset Building. Washington, D.C.: New America Foundation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Sector Oversight and Policy Coordination Because each state controls their savings plan, they have the ability to facilitate coordination with other program efforts and policy objectives. Some states are more active than others in reaching out to lower-income families. These states' actions include broad outreach efforts, small minimum deposit requirements, scholarships for accountholders, and other incentives. A number of states offer a savings match to low- and moderate-income families who are state residents. With these targeted incentives, 529 plans are a preferred route for many families to save for post-secondary education compared to other tax-advantaged vehicles such as Coverdells or IRAs. Also, partnerships with public and non-profit entities allow states to market their 529 savings plans in non-traditional venues, such as in schools, public libraries and other social service systems. Centralized System of Accounting As each state is responsible for overseeing plan participation, they create a centralized system of account management. This means that all participants are in the same system, and a single provider carries out all accounting functions. With this centralized system, it becomes easier and less expensive to service the accounts. This is similar to how a 401 (k) plan works. These systems are capable of tracking contributions, investments, and earnings for all plan participants. It also creates the opportunity to match deposits for low- and moderate- income state resident families. Limited Investment Options In most 529 plans there is a prevailing simplicity in investment options. Usually only a limited number of funds are offered that capture a range of risk and return characteristics. Professionally- managed mutual funds generate a degree of diversification. Most states generally offer a conservative guaranteed-return fund based on government bonds, balanced funds based on the beneficiary's age, and a small set of funds that track different aspects of the securities market. The notion is that a limited set of investment options provides account holders adequate investment choice in pursuing their investment strategies and is preferable to the information overload that may be experienced if choosing among an unlimited number of investment options. Recent studies focusing on 401(k) plans have found that too many investment choices can lead to financial inertia, paralysis, and low participation--qualities to avoid in long-term investing. Small Accounts Viability Centralizing administrative functions also creates economies of scale that can help lower costs. With such a large asset pool, states are in a strong position to negotiate a more competitive fee structure with their private sector investment managers than would be offered to individual investors. In many states, these advantages have been realized and investment companies have departed from their normal business practices to offer pricing and minimum contribution concessions. As a result, many 529 plans have relatively low initial deposit requirements compared to the mutual fund industry. There is the potential to lower fees further as assets under management rise. Because large- and small-value accounts are held in the same plan, there is a natural cross-subsidy where the smaller accounts (which may be unprofitable) can be supported by the larger accounts (with higher profit margins). As the state negotiates and controls the fee structure, there is an opportunity to support small accounts within the 529 college savings plan structure. Several potential drawbacks should also be recognized that potentially undermine the appropriateness of using 529 plans as a savings vehicle for lower-income families. These include consideration of how these savings will interact with eligibility for financial aid and public assistance programs, high administrative costs which some state plans charge that erode earnings, and penalties for non-qualified uses if a recipients opts not to choose post-secondary education. Each of these issues should be addressed directly as part of a reform effort to make 529 plans more effective and inclusive savings vehicles. Options to Make 529 Plans More Effective and Inclusive Savings Vehicles Over the last thirty years, the number of specialized savings accounts has expanded significantly, extending well beyond 529 savings plans.\4\ While this policy trend represents a shift toward asset-based policy, the implementation of these efforts has been considerably more regressive than the proceeding social insurance and means-tested transfer programs developed since the New Deal. Furthermore, the need to save for college is an extension of the underlying importance of savings as the basis for more extensive asset building. As such, there is a case to be made for government to support a more inclusive asset- building policy, which could include a reformed 529 Savings Plan program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ The list includes traditional Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) in 1974, Coverdell Education Savings Accounts in 1997, 401(k) plans in 1978, and Health Savings Accounts first created in 1996, and Roth IRAs in 1997. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The involvement of state governments in 529 savings plans has provided a laboratory of innovation and led to a series of insights. First, it is clear that the public sector can play a leading role in defining and overseeing policy. Second, private financial firms can build upon their expertise to effectively manage assets and keep administrative costs down with high account volumes, limited transactions, and a small set of investment choices. Third, incentives must be crafted for each target population. Fourth, consumers must have access to timely and transparent information to make informed investment decisions that are right for them. While the structure of most state-run 529 plans offers an effective savings platform, the federal tax incentives associated with these accounts primarily restrict benefits to middle- and upper-income families. Accordingly, it is unlikely that this federal policy, if left unchanged, will significantly increase access to post-secondary education opportunities. Building on these insights, there are a series of policy options that would improve the effectiveness and inclusiveness of this policy effort. These proposals built on the guiding principles of transparency, inclusiveness, and offering saving incentives for those who need them most, will enable families to evaluate and make informed choices as to how best to save for college. Use 529 Plans as a Platform for Lifetime Education Savings 529 plans have qualified uses that include a range of post- secondary educational expenses. These uses should be clarified and expanded to cover more asset-building activities. While commonly associated with saving for a child's higher education expenses, these accounts can work just as well for working adults looking to save for their own higher education and skills training needs. For workers looking to command a higher wage in their current field, or switch fields altogether, higher education and training is essential. For individuals who cannot pay for tuition, books and fees out of pocket-- and are wary of taking on onerous debt--saving is the answer. Instead of creating new workforce training accounts, the Federal Government should use the existing infrastructure available through 529 accounts and work with states to promote and incentivize the use of these accounts by working adults Add 529 Plans to the List of Products Eligible for the Saver's Credit The Saver's Credit currently provides a 50 percent match--in the form of a non-refundable tax credit--to low-and moderate-income people who contribute to a retirement account such as a 401(k) or IRA. To further promote savings in general, a range of savings products, including 529s, could be added to the list of products that trigger this credit; the administration proposed such a change as part of the FY 2008 Budget. Certainly one could argue that pre-retirement assets-- especially a post-secondary education--is a critical element of retirement security, and it should be noted that all IRAs already permit tax-and penalty-free withdrawals for post-secondary education. Matching Grants to Low-Income Savers Currently 529 plans are largely underutilized by low- and middle- income families. A number of states have dedicated funds to match savings in 529 plans as an additional incentive for low-income families. These incentives appear to be successful in encouraging families to contribute to 529 plans. Seven states--Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Utah--already provide matching funds to low-income savers, and Arkansas will begin providing targeted matches in 2008. Additional resources could be devoted to helping states develop matching grant programs. Create a State Innovation Fund A variety of state and private sector actors have enacted innovative programs within their 529 plans to primarily help low-income children pay for college. For example, a few non-profit organizations have offered matches to families saving for college through parallel 529 scholarship accounts. In SEED for Oklahoma Kids, 1,000 newborns will receive a 529 plan with a starter deposit of $1,000. Financial information and matching deposits will be provided as incentives for families to continue to save for a post-secondary education. Coalitions are being formed in states such as Kentucky and Michigan to look into the possibilities of universal 529s for every child in the state with progressive savings incentives incorporated to help low-income families. The Federal Government could encourage these types of innovative activities by sponsoring a competitive grant process where states could receive awards to help seed these initiatives. Facilitate Better Disclosure and Comparison of 529 Plans Because they are created by state governments, 529 plan investments are not subject to federal security laws such as those covering most mutual funds. In addition, research shows that individuals saving in broker-sold plans were frequently doing so in out-of-state plans, even if they would potentially benefit more from saving in their in-state plans because of state tax incentives. This raises the question of whether brokers recommend plans that benefit themselves rather than seeking the best plan for their client. At a minimum, brokers should be required to inform clients about any benefits that exist from utilizing their own state's 529 plan. In addition, the Federal Government should support efforts to allow the easy comparison of all plans in a particular state and among states. Websites, such as savingforcollege.com, provide a simple comparison of 529 plans which could be promoted or serve as a model. Finally, states should be encouraged to market their direct-sold plans to their residents, which are usually a less expensive alternative to the broker-sold options. Collect Better Data on Who Saves and Benefits from 529 Plans Because data is generally not collected about 529 plan accountholders' socioeconomic details, we do not know how plan ownership varies by income and which segments of the population benefit from these tax incentive the most. If this data were collected, it could help shape improvements to 529 plan policies in the future, helping to ensure that tax breaks and other incentives are serving their intended purpose. Useful data about the saving habits of low- income families in 529 plans could be gained from those states offering matching grants, since an application disclosing income must be provided. Require Employers to Offer Payroll Deduction into 529 Plans One of the most effective ways to encourage families to save is to make the process automatic. Millions of Americans have already opted to direct a portion of their paycheck into a restricted account such as an IRA or 401(k), allowing them to save for retirement with minimal effort. Payroll deduction has enabled workers to build retirement security by making one, initial decision to divert a portion of their income; the same process should be used to facilitate saving for higher education. Employers should be required to offer payroll deduction into Section 529 higher education savings accounts if requested by their employee. Small- and medium-sized employers that do not already offer payroll deduction can be offered a small tax credit to cover the costs associated with implementing the change. Statement of Robert Shireman I am writing to request that as the Members of the Subcommittee consider how best to structure tax incentives for higher education, they also address a tax disincentive that runs counter to the purpose of the federal financial aid system in general, and to the intent of important new loan forgiveness programs in particular. As part of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (CCRAA), Congress created three new programs aimed at reducing the burden of student debt and increasing incentives for students to pursue careers in public service. The Income- Based Repayment program (IBR) will keep loan payments fair and manageable for borrowers with low earnings relative to their debt, and forgives any debt that may remain after 25 years of repayment. The new Loan Forgiveness for Public Service Employees program will forgive any debt that remains after borrowers have made 10 years of qualifying payments while working in an eligible job. Qualifying payments for public service loan forgiveness include IBR payments made in the Direct Loan Program, as well as payments under the existing, and much smaller, Income- Contingent Repayment program (ICR). Eligible jobs include those in state, local, and Federal Government as well as 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations. The new TEACH program provides future teachers with loans that will be treated as grants--forgiven in full--if they meet certain teaching criteria within eight years of graduation, but must be repaid if they do not meet the criteria. In general, the Code treats canceled or ``forgiven'' loans as taxable income, although there are specific exceptions for some student loans in certain circumstances. It seems likely--though neither the IRS nor the Education Department has addressed the issue--that loans canceled under the new programs (2) and (3) would already be exempt from taxation under Section 108(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, since they involve loan forgiveness by a third party (the Federal Government) as part of a program to forgive student loan debt of individuals working for a certain time in certain professions. However, it seems clear that loans forgiven for those in IBR and ICR do not qualify for tax exemption because they are not job-specific. This is a particular concern because borrowers who meet the income- based forgiveness criteria are the most likely to face significant hardships if the forgiveness results in a tax liability. We are seeking an amendment that would make clear that loans canceled under all three of these new programs, which apply only to federal student loans in these limited circumstances after a number of years of repayment, would not be considered income for federal income tax purposes. Otherwise, the very borrowers whom these programs are supposed to protect from unmanageable repayment burdens will instead be burdened with unmanageable tax obligations. At the same time that this issue is being addressed, we want to make sure that other loan cancellation provisions that are not currently taxed continue to be treated in that manner. This includes loans canceled due to school closures, falsely-certified loans, and discharges as a result of death or permanent disability. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this recommendation for the record. The Institute (www.ticas.org), which sponsors the Project on Student Debt, is a nonprofit policy research organization with offices in Washington, D.C., and Berkeley, California.