Who Gets the Scholarship? How the Global Shift in College Sports Affects Americans

Um uh before we get started I just want to uh thank first of all R. J. and Eli uh part of the committee. The work they've done on this, uh the vision, the legwork is remarkable and it's very, very timely, so uh I've learned a lot and I'm excited about uh our country hear hear a little bit more about what we're talking about. Uh college athletics provide important opportunities uh for young people to get an education. Let me see one second. Oh, sorry. That's not, okay, here it is. Okay. College ethica- uh athletics provide important for young people to get an education and start on a path to success in life. But those opportunities are limited. Each year, NCAA division one and two schools award more than four billion dollars in athletic scholarships to more than a hundred eighty thousand student athletes. Only about two percent of high school s- athletes receive an athletic scholarship. At the same time, international participation in college athletics has grown substantially. From from fewer than nine thousand in two thousand one, to roughly twenty-five thousand today. That matters because scholarships and roster spots are finite. American s- families devote years of time and money in youth and high school sports so their kids can compete at the college level. Too often the sports goes to older international athletes instead. The pressure to win at all costs in in today's college sports environment has led more coaches to recruit older international athletes instead of American high school graduates. Although recent NCAA eligibility changes may have put downward pressure on participation for older international students, they are unlikely to meaningfully reduce the growth uh in this recruiting. The trend is particularly high in certain division one s- uh sports. In tennis, more than sixty percent of players are international. International participation in hockey is forty percent, and men's ho- uh soccer is over a third. And basketball international participation has more than doubled in the last decade. Two thousand twenty-five NCAA tournaments, international student athletes made up over fifteen percent of participants. This is not limited to the highest levels of college sports. In and twenty twenty-two, the Alabama State's uh men's tennis team won the HBCU tournament scholarship with a roster completely composed of international student athletes. Last year, division two Flagler College won a national tennis title with an all-international roster. In Division Two men's soccer, more than half the players in last year's national championship were international. This trend also weakens the development of U. S. Olympic talent. U. S. colleges provide athletes access to elite coaching, competition, and training facilities. At the twenty twenty-four Paris Olympics, sixty-five percent of U. S. Olympic teams were current, former or incoming NCAA student-athletes. However, of the one thousand Olympians in Paris, only three hundred and eighty-five competed for Team USA. As others, uh uh over sixty-three percent competed for foreign nations. The women's sports has a simpler s- a similar pattern. At the twenty twenty-one Tokyo Olympics, women who competed at US colleges represented at least seventy-five countries. Title nine of the Education Amendment for nineteen seventy-two has greatly expanded a- athletic opportunities for women in the United States. Congress did not intend for those opportunities to be filled by international athletes or athletic departments to comply by recruiting international players. US colleges are significantly contributing to the Olympic success of other countries while taking away scholarship opportunities from American athletes. This is the reality that's in front of us. International s- rec- recruiting has surged. American ki- kids are losing roster spots. And the college system that helps developed Team USA is also developing everybody else's teams. Our college sports culture has become a mess. We're turning away from the priorities of the past, such as patriotism, providing opportunities of to uh for our kids to build character, preparing the next generation to stand on our shoulders. We have a system that works for the detriment of our children and to the benefits of institutions and those who run it. This is an example of how we've turned college sports into an industry of greed and self-interest. a toxic mindset of whatever it takes. I look forward to our witnesses uh before us today, visionary adults in the room who care about our future and figuring out how to get America's heart and soul back into college sports. With that, I yield back to the I'll yield to the ranking member for her opening statements.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. This is the final hearing in this subcommittee uh before the House uh uh c- for the House once again return to our district. for a long recess. And since the beginning of this Congress, students, families and teachers have have been through the ringer, as the Trump administration ramped up its attacks on public education. Our higher education system has long been the envy of the world. Thousands of public and private institutions draw the brightest minds from around the world to pursue groundbreaking research and other academic work. International students can offer few new perspectives, new ideas and skills that make America's schools rich in both academic achievement and cultural diversity. Tragically, the Trump administration's bigoted attacks on international students have made coming to the US to attend college an uncertain and and often a dangerous prospect. These students face threats of visa restriction, termination and deportation. These actions don't just affect these students, they affect all of us. all of us who rely on the valuable contributions uh they make to our communities. And I worry that uh today's hearing only serves to further demonize a a population already struggling to keep their heads above water. Th- this is just one of many sins that the Trump administration has committed in higher education more broadly. This administration ha- has made it harder for everyone to access a quality higher education. As a result of the dismantling of the Department of Education, students and families lost resources, information, and institutional expertise that they relied on to apply for student loans, combat discrimination, access accommodations, and much more. The Trump administration undermined the Office of Federal Student Aid, which administers the one point seven trillion dollars in federal student loan portfolio. In March of twenty twenty six, the GAO reported that following massive staff cuts, FSA had stopped key oversight of student loan servicers. As a result, forty-three million borrowers have been left without sufficient support. And to make matters worse, last year's congressional Republican and Republicans and and the President passed their big ugly bill, which made the college cri- cost crisis exponentially worse. It limited to Pell- it limited access to Pell grants, imposed new borrowing limits, excuse me, and made repaying loans more expensive. These cuts will make it harder for low-income students to access the Pell grant, and it will push many students toward the predatory private loan market. Uh, taken together, this big ugly bill will will make college harder to afford, particularly for underserved communities. Now, seven million borrowers are currently being forced out of one of the most affordable repayment plans ever created. Those who only strove to to improve their education will now be forced into less affordable plans, including the Big Ugly Bills and New Less affordable repayment plans, which will raise monthly payments by hundreds of dollars for more borrowers. Additionally, millions of borrowers are now closer than ever to defaulting on their loans. Meanwhile, the GAO report recommended that the Department of Education provide earlier coordination with loan services to ensure borrowers have them, uh, the most accurate, to have the most accurate information. Our public colleges are full of bright young minds from all walks of life, from all fifty states, and from all over the world. These students brave the unknown in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families. So we must respect and honor that pursuit by tearing down barriers to entry, not building more walls. In today's economy, a college education is the strongest engine of economic mobility and the surest path to the American dream. College graduates earn more, experience lower unemployment rates, and are better positioned to support their families and contribute to their communities. No one, no matter their race, no matter their religion, nationality, gender, sexuality, or financial situation should be robbed of that opportunity. Looking for- looking towards uh the next Congress, committee Democrats are ready with real concrete solutions to the college cost crisis and we're gonna fight, tooth and nail, uh to make those solutions a reality. We're gonna continue to push back on this administration's attack on public education. We're gonna fight to protect and strengthen federal student aid and expand the Pell Grant and ensure strong oversight of the student loan system so that borrowers are treated fairly. And we - we will work to create an education system that - that truly fulfills the promise of the American dream. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you. Uh, pursuant to Committee Rule eight C, all members who wish to insert written They do so by submitting them to committee clerk uh like a committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by five PM, fourteen days after this hearing. Without objection, the hearing will be remain open for fourteen days to allow statements and other material noted during the hearing to be submitted uh for the official hearing record uh I now turn to introduce our four distinguished witness witnesses. The first witness is Mister Patrick Mc McEnroe, um Broadcaster with ESPN in Bronxville, New York. Second witness is Mr. Thomas Tommy Brown, owner and CEO of One Heartbeat in Key Cleveland, Tennessee. Our third witness is Mr. Aaron Admet, uh President of National Student Legal Defense Network in Washington, D. C. And our fourth witness is Mr. Douglas DePitt, DePitt, uh Lieutenant Colonel, retired US Army and special counsel to Bunk Walter L LLD LLP in Denver, Colorado. We thank the witness for being here today and looking forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I ask that you limit your oral presentation to three minute summary of your written statement. The clock will count down from three minutes, as committee members have many questions to ask you. Pursuant, however, pursuant to committee rule eight D, the committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach your five minute mark. I'd also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of the responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. Uh, I'd like to first recognize uh, Mister Mackerel for your testimony.

Uh, Chairman, Ranking Member, members of this subcommittee, uh, thank you so much for having me. I have to say I've been doing this, as you said, broadcasting for over thirty years and I got some butterflies today, cuz to be here in front of you is um is an honor.

Hi.

So, I again thank you for having me. Uh, I've been lucky enough to spend most of my life around sports and specifically around tennis. Um, as a younger brother, uh, as a coach, as a broadcaster, I was a Davis Cup captain for a decade, representing the country all over the world, which was an amazing honor for me. And now I work with young athletes at our tennis academy in New York City, with their families, uh, and in the broader fan base of sports in general. Earlier this year I was home, uh, in New York, and I started raising an alarm about something I was seeing in college tennis specifically. At the SEC and the ACC men's finals, two of the biggest, um, uh, conferences in tennis, I counted up that only three of the twenty-four players on the court were American. Uh, today international athletes make up well more than sixty percent of division one tennis and that number continues to rise for both men and women. Uh, and at many schools, as you mentioned in your comments, this is true for ninety percent or more of the teams. So at that time I called tennis the canary in the coal mine, and I'm here because the canary was right. This isn't about just about tennis anymore. The same incentives are increasingly showing up across all college sports. Coaches are under enormous pressure to win now, and if we can recruit an older, fully developed international athlete, often someone who has already competed professionally, why spend several years developing an eighteen year old American? And so this phenomenon is growing not only in tennis, but in basketball, soccer, track and field, cross country, golf, swimming, and other Olympic sports. Women's teams are impacted equally, if not even more so than men's. I understand the temptation, but we need to understand its consequences. And let me be s- be clear too about something else. Um, I welcome international athletes. I played with them, I competed with them, and I coached them. Uh, they make our teams better. They make our universities better. bring talent, culture and competition to American campuses. But this is about balance and making sure we don't close the door on our own kids in the process. Because roster spots are finite, when one athlete gets a spot, another doesn't, and the families who feel that most are not the wealthiest ones. Youth sports is already extremely expensive. Families with means can buy more coaching, more tournaments, more travel, more opportunities to be seen. Middle class and working class families have fewer path uh uh fewer options when the pathway narrows but here's something else that we should not underestimate, and that is hope. I work with young athletes and parents all the time. Most of these kids are not going to be professionals. Their dream is much simpler. Can I play in college? Why? Because college provides opportunity. That possibility keeps kids practicing, competing, studying, getting back up after they lose, and becoming our future leaders. But what does a fifteen or sixteen year old American kid think when he or she looks around and sees college rosters filled with older fully developed players from all around the world many of whom have professional experience? At some point the message changes from work hard and you might earn your opportunity to maybe that opportunity isn't really there for you anymore. For millions of kids, College sports is not a professional dream. It's the next rung on the ladder. Take away enough rungs and eventually kids stop climbing. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And I'll recognize Mister Brown for your testimony.

Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the Team USA Act and greater opportunities for American student athletes and our future leaders of tomorrow. Like Patrick, this is way out of my comfort zone.

My background is as a small college uh athlete and coach and athletic director. I now work with teams at all levels on teaching mental toughness and confidence. Most of us, when we think of college athletics, we think of the power four. We think of big time college football and we also think of March Madness. In fact, in reality, there are over eighteen hundred institutions that have intercollegiate athletics. I'm not against As Patrick said, I'm not against international athletes competing on American rosters either. I do believe that we need to limit this though. In fact, some of my favorite players I've ever coached have been international athletes. The fifth year of eligibility that's that the NCAA has granted is a definite game changer, is reduce the number of spots for everyone. A friend of mine who is highly involved in an AAU program said to me just yesterday, When is the last time the NCAA made a rule that benefited high school American athletes? A division one head coach basketball coach recently said to me, the only reason to recruit a high school American athlete is, they're less expensive from an NIL perspective. I work with several institutions all over the country. I recently worked with a junior college soccer program. This team, their institution limits them to ten international players. This puts them at a distinct competitive disadvantage. However, the coach said one of the positives of having so many American players is, is that they develop and many of them end up signing with division one institutions, and almost all of them sign four-year college scholarships. College coaches just want a level playing field. They don't want to be put at a competitive disadvantage. And if you feel we are discriminating against international athletes, I'd like to remind everyone Canadian Football League limits the number of Americans on their rosters, as do most European basketball leagues are limited to two Americans. The reason why they do this is because their roster would be full of Americans if they didn't. I believe deeply in the value of college athletics. Our student-athletes develop grit, resilience, they learn to get outside themselves, to put the team ahead of themselves, and they learn valuable leadership skills. I urge you to support Chairman Wahlberg's Team USA Act to preserve opportunities for American student-athletes and our future leaders of tomorrow.

Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize uh Mister Amit for your testimony.

Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. My name is Aaron Amit and I'm the president of the National Student Legal Defense Network, a nonpartisan, non-profit organization, that works to advance students' rights to educational opportunity and to ensure higher education provides a launching point for economic mobility. So I deeply appreciate the opportunity to testify today about critical issues facing our nation's students. As a die-hard college sports fan, scholarships can certainly feel like a matter of life and death in my household. But I think it's important to remember that scholarship athletes represent approximately one percent of America's college students. Meanwhile, tens of millions of students and student loan borrowers are trapped in a snowballing crisis that is worsening every day during the Trump administration. Over the past three decades, average tuition and fees at public four-year colleges have roughly doubled after adjusting for inflation, and tuition at private four-year colleges has climbed almost as much. Students and parents borrowed more than a hundred billion dollars for the twenty-four, twenty-five school year alone. And too often, these loans are used to attend programs, especially at for-profit colleges, with low graduation rates and poor outcomes. During the COVID pandemic, federal loan payments were paused. The return to repayment has led approximately nine million student loan borrowers into default. In short, students are increasingly taking on debt they'll never be able to repay. Rather than confronting this crisis head-on, the Trump administration has made it worse at nearly every turn. According to the Federal Reserve, thirty-five percent of current student borrowers who attended for-profit institutions were behind on student loan payments. That's more than double the rate for public and non-profit colleges. Previous administrations attempted to halt the flow of federal dollars for for-profit and career-oriented programs whose graduates didn't earn enough to pay back their loans through regulations known as the gainful employment rules. The Trump administration gutted those efforts. At a time when Americans are struggling to afford their daily lives, the Trump administration is poised to resume seizing distressed borrowers' tax refunds, social security benefits, and their wages. The administration has gutted oversight of schools and relief for defrauded students. It has attempted to turn the public service loan forgiveness program into a political football, and undermine the government's promises to millions of teachers, firefighters, nurses, service members, first responders, and other public servants. And it has sowed chaos and confusion throughout the federal s- student loan program by eliminating popular repayment options, botching implementation of student loan provisions in the so-called " big beautiful bill" and decimating the Office of Federal Student Aid's customer service capacity. Each of these missteps has been made worse by the turmoil and disorder and remains of federal student aid and the administration's obsession with shuttering the Department of Education. President Trump's own executive order acknowledged that FSA is grossly understaffed as the president noted FSA manages a loan portfolio roughly the same size as Wells Fargo Wells Fargo has two hundred thousand employees. FSA had fewer than fifteen hundred when Trump took office. The obvious response to that realization would be to better equip FSA to run the government's one point six trillion dollar student loan portfolio. Instead, the administration cut it to the bone. Within two months of Trump's inauguration, FSA was down to eight hundred and sixty-one employees. You didn't need a crystal ball to see what would happen next. Today, the student loan system is in chaos. and students and families are paying the price. Congress has the authority and the responsibility to demand answers and accountability. Our organization, Student Defense, stands ready to work with this committee on all of these issues, and I thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you. Uh, last, I'd like to recognize Mister, uh, DePette for your testimony.

Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, members of the committee, thank you for asking for my testimony concerning pathways into college. My name is Douglas Depep. I am an attorney, a retired army judge advocate, a former division one soccer player, a youth soccer coach of more than twenty years, and the father of three sons who successfully navigated the pathway from youth soccer to college soccer. I want to show you that soccer tells a similar story about pathway disruption at all levels of American uh men's college soccer, top to bottom. I analyzed every team that competed in the twenty twenty-five national championships across NCAA divisions one two three, the NAIA, and junior college soccer. Two hundred and sixteen teams, seven thousand one hundred and eighty-three players. Only two of those five levels had rosters that were majority American. Division two, NAIA, junior college soccer were all majority international. This reaches all the way down to community college soccer. My research, submitted with my submit written submission to the committee, reveals the following levels of international soccer players during last year's national championships. NCAA division one, about forty-one percent international, NCAA div- division two, fifty point five percent. NCAA division three, sixteen point five percent international, which was an outlier. NAIA was more than seventy percent international. Junior college, sixty-one point five percent. To be clear, these findings do not mean international athletes are the problem, they are not. International student athletes are pursuing opportunities exactly as American students would. The question before Congress is not whether international athletes should participate in American college sports. The question is whether the pathway from American youth soccer to college soccer remains reasonably balanced and transparent and sustainable for future generations of American athletes but roster nationality is only part of what I've heard from athletes I represent since House versus NCAA litigation, I've continued representing college athletes in soccer, golf, swimming, tennis, track and field. And across every one of them I keep hearing the same question in different forms, is it fair? Is it fair for a college to recruit on an athlete onto a team already so oversized that it can't realistically develop or play everyone on it, without ever disclosing that fact before the athlete commits, enrolls, and pays tuition? Is it fair for that athlete to discover the truth only after enrolling, when transferring means lost development, lost time, and a year gone from uh their eligibility. Is it fair that when that happens, the financial benefit flows to the institution while the athlete and family are left holding the debt? These are not abstract questions. They come from athletes who did everything after them and found the opportunity they were promised was not the opportunity they received. They are questions about recruitment transparency, transparency, athlete opportunity, and institutional accountability. They raise serious questions about whether athletes and families receive material information necessary to make informed educational, financial, and athletic decisions. For Congress to legislate on protecting fair access to sport rosters, it should not solely focus on international limits. It should also legislate on recruiting transparency, and to bar deceptive practices in recruiting. As an attorney who has spent time on exactly this kind of unfairness in college athletics, I urge the committee to look at pathway disruption more holistically, not just who is on the roster, but what colleges are required to disclose to recruited athletes before they commit. My written testimony lays out the full data, the legal question I believe deserves the committee's attention, and several concrete steps Congress can take beyond a cap alone. Thank you and I welcome your questions.

Thank you. Under community rule nine, we'll now begin questioning witnesses on the five minute rule. I'll recognize myself for five minutes. Uh, Mister McElroy, in your testimony you referenced college tennis as a canary in a coal mine coal mine, while for college athletics. What did you mean by that?

Well, what I meant is that um tennis has the highest percentage number of international athletes, but we're starting to see this, as you've heard from the other witnesses here, this happening in other sports, cuz many people maybe would say, well, tennis is an international sport, tennis is for rich people, et cetera, et cetera. That's not the case realistically, and it's also not the case in what we're seeing in the numbers in other sports as well. So that's why I said when when I initially saw I mean, I've obviously been experiencing this for years, knowing that international players are playing tennis in colleges. They played when I was um playing in college, but the numbers have grown so exponentially that when I saw this these matches going on in April on television, it just hit a chord with me. And I put a message out on my ex account, it's simply stating the facts of what I was seeing, and it blew up in a way that I I really wasn't expecting, because I think it hit a nerve not only with people in my sport in tennis, but with people like we're hearing from today and from other sports that this that's why it's the canary in the coal mine because it's happening um all across sports, all across America. And again, I welcome people from all over the world. That's what makes America great, especially in our university systems. Um, but we've got a responsibility, I believe Congress has a responsibility, to r- restore the balance here, so that we have a balance of our kids having hope and opportunity. The last time I, you know, people will say to me oftentimes, well, but maybe American kids just need to get better. They're not good enough. You know, they're not as good as international kids. I said no. first of all this is not professional sports this is collegiate sports and

mmm

collegiate sports is supposed to be something that serves to educate our kids make them be how many leaders do we know in these walls that have played college sports that have gone on to become significant business leaders and political leaders so i believe that it's worth protecting and worth doing something that um restores the balance back so that we can have a mix of internationals but also have

our kids and the families of those kids still have that hope and dream of being more successful in life.

Th- thank you. Thank you so much. Um, mister Brown, international athletes uh played uh in American college for decades, yet the percentage of international students on American rosters has increased dramatically over the last ten years. From your view, what accounts for this rapid shift?

Again, coaches just want to win. They wanna be competitive. They don't want don't wanna be uh put at a disadvantage. From a basketball standpoint, Uh, there used to be the narrative that international athletes were a little soft, and that has changed. Uh, the, they have, the development in European countries especially has grown, and they're just much better players now. And so, uh, they've done a, an excellent job. And I don't necessarily believe the international players used to be soft. I just think that they have,

Mm.

they've really worked, uh, and developed at a higher rate than American athletes have. Uh, As far as other sport, every sport's different,

Yeah.

obviously, and um, you know, basketball's the one I really can speak to the most. Uh, but um, you know, other institu- I mean, American colleges typically, if they feel they can find a competitive advantage, they're gonna utilize it.

OK.

Cuz, I mean, and coaches at all levels get fired.

Yeah.

Not just the power four, and so coaches wanna win to keep those jobs.

OK, thank you. Um, Miss uh Doctor uh Mister uh Depep, as you mentioned in your testimony, other countries in their athletic associations already put limits on international players. Why hasn't the NCAA done the same to protect opportunities for American uh student athletes?

Well, I think the missions are different. So overseas, um the athletes tend to be p- pursuing a um professional path. And um college sports, uh I don't believe any any university has a mission that includes athletics in it. Um, you know, i- there's other objectives. Um, but I think in terms of the NCAA's ro- uh role in it, um, they're somewhat limited, um, certainly with all the litigation that's been, uh, occurring in the last couple of years. Um, it would be, um, uh, challenging for them to put a cap on without facing litigation most likely. So I think from their standpoint, um, that's that's possibly, I can't speak for them, but possibly their judgment. Um, getting to the broader point though I think that you're asking, uh, certainly in soccer, um, around the world, particularly in Europe, uh, there are prescribed limits, um, for non-EU citizens in, in most countries. Not, not universally true. There are some that are very open, but an awful lot of, of, uh, countries have caps, um, far more restrictive than the twenty percent that's in the bill.

OK, thank you. Uh, I definitely look forward to continuing this conversation. I want I would like to recognize the ranking member for comments, questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you all for your testimony. Uh, Mr. Mann, uh, uh, I wanna use my time to to talk about what's happening to students and borrowers right now. Congress eliminated the Graduate Plus program and created higher barring limits for certain professional degree programs and the department then adopted a definition of professional degree that left a number of graduate programs outside of the higher loan limit uh that definition is now tied up in court and the department has had to issue temporary guidance uh telling schools which programs qualify while the cases move forward so uh uh mister uh for a student deciding right now uh whether they can afford nursing, education, social work, or - or another graduate program, what does this uh uncertainty actually mean? And if the department ultimately prevails in its definition, uh i- if - if its definition takes effect, then what happens to students in programs that do not qualify for the higher loan limits? And are we pushing them more toward private loans or out of these uh profess- professions altogether?

Thank you, Ranking Member Adams. You know, in recent years we've seen an explosion in graduate lending, uh, particularly in the for-profit sector. Uh, I'm seeing several for-profit schools exploiting unlimited lending, uh, recruiting, uh, students from underserved communities, blacks and Latino students into, um, many graduate programs with poor outcomes, um, in bleak job prospects, and hopefully we'll see that practice curve down. Um, at the same time, As you know, we're in the midst of an affordability crisis and the administration has excluded, uh, many programs and fields like graduate nursing from the higher caps, um, you know, that I don't believe was the intent of Congress. And what happens is many people, um, in these communities aren't gonna be able to attend those programs. I served for years as an assistant attorney general in Kentucky, and many of our rural communities, especially in the mountains in eastern Kentucky and Appalachia have severe nursing shortages, and shortages in other medical fields. And when those students that are attending - trying to attend those programs can't get access to the loans, they're either driven, one, to the private market with much worse repayment rates, um, exclusion from programs like public service loan forgiveness, and many of them are going into, uh, public health or working in public hospitals.

OK, thank you, sorry, let me ask you a few more questions. Uh, let me make one broader point here. These are not abstract changes. So when Congress changes how much a student can borrow or the department changes, which degree programs qualify students have to make real decisions uh about whether they can afford to attend um uh let me talk a little bit about default. Your testimony says approximately nine million borrowers with about two hundred and twenty billion in federal student loans are already in default. And so I have some concerns and have had some for a while. Congressman Raskin and I passed it passed the department um after borrowers had their tax refunds seized uh including reports from uh people who said they did not receive proper notice and so now we're dealing with this default crisis. Uh what does this default crisis actually look like for borrowers sitting at their kitchen table trying to figure out what to do?

So there are currently nine million student loan borrowers that have been driven into default with the start of um of repayment. Estimates are that it could be as many as thirteen million by the end of the year. What does that mean to people? Well, the Trump administration has announced that they will um start involuntary collections again. So we're gonna see seniors um have potentially social security offset, tax refunds seized, um wages could be garnished. Um for many of these Americans, potentially you know hundreds of thousands of people that could be the difference between being driven into poverty or not.

So so what should what should the department be doing to help people get out of default before it starts taking wages tax refunds or social security benefits?

Well it's gonna be difficult um since you know they have fired more than half of the staff at federal student aid the very people that are attempting you know are supposed to be attempting to help people get back into repayment. Um, but, you know, they could start by rehiring, by staffing up the Ombudsman's office that has now been outsourced to half-functioning chatbots. Um, and, you know, when, um, borrowers are calling with questions of how can they, you know, transfer into an income-driven repayment plan, assist these borrowers in figuring out what payment plan can they afford what monthly payment plan can they afford.

OK. So, b- uh, you know, um, These are not numbers, just numbers in in in a federal loan portfolio. These are people trying to pay their rent, trying to buy groceries, raise their families and still make good on their student loans. So I thank you very much for your testimony. Now you're back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize the uh Chairman of the Fall Committee, uh my good friend from Miss uh Michigan, uh Mr. Walbert.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel for being here, and Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. Even though my uh my friends on the other side of the aisle don't wanna compete on in the same playing field that we're discussing today, and in fact talking about things that are hangovers from the last administration, that encouraged student loan debt, that was impossible to pay off, and so the only way of dealing with it was to give them total forgiveness and let the taxpayer pay for it. No wonder we've got some of the problems. But we're talking about something totally different here today, something that I think is very important. Uh, I didn't get the con- the wrestling scholarship I wanted to the university that I wanted to go to. But it wasn't because of international students out beating me out back in the sixties. Uh, had it been, I could have at least griped about it at this point. But we're seeing it happen today, so thank you for this hearing. The rise in international recruiting is taking away important opportunities for American kids to earn an education playing the sport they love. American families devote years of time and energy to youth and high school sports, hoping that work turns into a scholarship. Too often, that roster spot goes to an older international athlete and the American student is left to pay for the school on his or her own if they can get in. Uh, that's hard to justify in an - at American universities. This week, Senator Hustad and I introduced Training and Education for American Members in University Sports and Athletics Act, or Team USA Act. Our bill is simple. It limits international students to twenty percent of each team's roster, at any u- university that receives federal student aid under the Higher Education Act. This ensures that taxpayer-funded schools put opportunities for American kids first, protect Team USA, and and still leaves room for uh meaningful international participation. With that being said, we have a star-studded uh witness panel today, so I'm s- excited to hear what they would say. Mister McEnroe, um uh uh Thanks for leaving the court and coming to this court.

Thank you.

Uh, the picture you laid out in your testimony should concern all of us. Uh, from your perspective, how did tennis get this lopsided?

Well, I think we've laid it out and thank you for all the work you and I know your team have done on this. Um, you know, tennis is a very international sport, period. It's, uh, played globally. It's extremely popular in Europe. Um, as we heard from, you know, soccer and now basketball. And I think because the coaches, many of whom I kn- I know by the way, because I grew up with them, I played tennis with them, and in no way am I putting any blame on the coaches as, as um, as Tommy said, the coaches wanna win. And so they're looking to get the best players they can. You know, the national championships, I don't know if you know this, um, representative, are uh for uh the best junior tennis players, boys tennis players, is played in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where I've been many times, played a sixteen and under and eighteen and under. And you know what all the people t- tell me now who go to this tournament, the f- the parents, the coaches from our tennis academy, they say the top coaches in the country, collegiate coaches, are not even going there anymore to recruit players. They're going, they're just, they're just picking off international players that are two, three, four years older than when I was, when I played in Kalamazoo and lost to a guy from Michigan named Aaron Krikstein. You may remember him in the final. Um, so I have great memories of going there. all junior tennis players, all the greats have gone to Kalamazoo. And now when I hear that the college coaches are not even going there, this was the place where everyone went to find those Americans, and not just the ones that could possibly be pros, but the ones that could be in the lineup at division one schools and be part of the team. They're looking for kids with attitude, with the right um demeanor on the court, that repr- who will represent their university.

Yeah.

So I think that the many of the coaches have done this because it's the easy thing to do. and because the rules have allowed them to do it. Uh, when I see a a roster of kids in the male or female team in college, and the average age is twenty-three, twenty-four, and they're, and none of them are American, uh, you know, just to me the common sense of that just said someth- something's wrong here, it's gone off the rails, and we need to put some guardrails back in place, we need to restore balance.

That oughta wake us up, absolutely. Thank you. Mister Brown, you mentioned in testimony that it's not only in division one issue. Uh, why is it happening in smaller schools too?

Again, uh, small college coaches have to win to keep their jobs. And, uh, to be competitive, they're gonna do whatever they can to do it. They don't wanna be held to a competitive disadvantage. And, um, so it basically comes down to winning.

Um, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Um, Mr. Depep, um, do you trust schools to regulate themselves on this issue? Or does Congress have to set the guardrails?

I think as the other testimony indicated, there's a real competition, necessary competition, um, and so it's uh it's a race to the bottom in the sense that uh if if you can get a competitive advantage by recruiting an older athlete and and certainly in soccer, and as Mister McInerney indicated, the same applies to tennis and most likely other sports, um, you get a competitive advantage. So, um, the universities, the flight department, the coaches, uh, if they can get an advantage by recruiting an older athlete, which tends to be international generally speaking, or the transfer portal now,

Okay.

um, they're going to pursue that. So, the, can you trust the universities, i- w- i- it, trust is are they going to give an opportunity to an eight year old, eighteen year old high school athlete versus a twenty-one or twenty-two year old more mature athlete? they're going to select who out.

Yeah, I think the answer is probably what it is, so my my time has expired, I yield back.

Thank you. I'd like to now uh recognize my friend from Arizona, Miss.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here. I know that it is a sacrifice to come here and today is an especially busy day, so I appreciate your time. Um, today, you know, we're having a hearing um a committee of Republicans alleged that international student-athletes are taking educational and athletic opportunities away from American students. even though foreign athletes account for a small percentage of the NCAA student athletes. In southern Arizona and across my district, working class families and students are struggling be- not - they're not strugg- struggling because international student plays tennis or soccer. They're struggling because of an affordability crisis. Over the last twenty years, the average cost of college tuition fees and fees have increased by about fifty percent. Pell grants cover only the smallest share of college costs for those with the greatest financial need. Well, nearly sixty percent of college students experience basic needs insecurity regarding food and housing. Um, we recently had a hearing about capping the, um, possible loans that a student can receive in order to go into their chosen profession. So rather than delivering relief, what we're doing here is talking about, um, what we what we've done in this committee and in this administration pushed policies that make higher education harder to afford, declaring minority serving institutions unconstitutional, and stripping funding from Arizona's HSI e- gutting SNAP and Medicaid benefits that students rely on, and enacting H. R. one to replace manageable loan options with the WRAP plan, eliminating zero dollar payments and raising monthly bills. Meanwhile, this committee fails to conduct basic oversight on the department's reckless cutting of FSA staff, haphazard transfer of defaulted student loan collections and treasury under an inefficient inter-agency agreement and the quiet erasing of earned PSL credits from public servants due to international system errors. We should be using our authority to lower costs and protect student borrowers, not chase manufactured distractions, and to address, you know, critical oversight failures I think the issue really is that we have to frame this conversation that international students bring their talents, their sports, academic, et cetera, not that they're taking opportunities away from American students. So, I have questions really about the affordability crisis that we have for students, including my daughter, who is a sophomore at the University of Arizona. Um, the Department of Education has recently removed public service loan forgiveness, qualifying payments credits from borrowers. um with accounts with little communication to borrowers or stakeholders on exactly what coding error or if borrowers can appeal this decision. Mister Ament, I'm wondering if you can address the potential impact of those payment count errors on borrowers, especially those that believe they were close to earning forgiveness.