accosted afterwards but you can always try. i appreciate everybody coming. thank you very much. and thank you, mayor kennedy. >> thank you. here's a look at wednesday's night primetime programming across the c-span networks. here on c-span 3 at 8:00 eastern remarks from the president of the kennedy center, deborah rutter. on c-span 2 at 8:00 we'll show you american university citizenship conference, civic, business and education leaders discuss what it means to be citizen. on c-span at 8:00 we'll have more congressional retirement interviews. our focus will be on senator

carl levin and representative ralph hall. this thanksgiving week c-span is featuring interviews from retiring members of congress. watch the interviews through thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> much as we've accomplished in 36 years i don't want to look back at that so much as to look forward to the next couple of months. in the next couple of months there's a couple of things i would like to do. one is to get my defense authorization bill passed. this is an annual effort, a major effort involving large amounts of staff. i would also want to finish up some work on the permanent subcommittee on investigations, looking at some gimmicks which are used to avoid taxes. >> i've been a member of congress for 34 years and, you know, to finally get beat, if i

was a manager for a baseball or football team and i had a 34-1 i would be in the hall of fame. so it doesn't bother me. really it done bother me to get beat because i wasn't set on going but i had 18 co-chairmen who were chairmen in my district that support me and wanted me to run and i did. >> also on thursday, thanksgiving day, we'll take an american history tour of various native american tribes. that's at 10:00 a.m. eastern following washington journal. then at 1:30 attend a ground breaking ceremony of the new diplomacy center in washington with former secretaries of state. and supreme court justices clarence thomas, samuel alito and sotomayor at 8:30 p.m. eastern. that's this thanksgiving week on c-span for our complete schedule go to c-span.org. thanks for your comments about our programming.

here are a few we received about q and a. >> i just watched your program question and answer, and i find that it very offensive to put someone online for an hour, on air who knows very little about islam, very little about sharis. she misquoted the life of muhammed and his political facts that's inaccurate and one can on a scholarly basis, i find it offensive and completely shocked as someone who watches and respects c-span to see this program. i'm completely, completely

shocked and that's the worst program i've seen on c-span in 20 years. >> i wanted to comment on the q and a on c-span with the author. she has given the most complete and concise, articulated explanation of the muslim region in the modern world that i have not heard of and i am a religious scholar of over 65 years. she should be commended just for this speech. thank you very much, c-span. >> continue to let us know what think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at commentsass c-span.org or send us a tweet @c-span #comments. up next a look at the national labor relations board's

ruling earlier this year backing the formation of a union by football players at northwestern university. the house education committee heard from baylor university president and former solicitor general ken starr, patrick iler and others. yon klein of minnesota chairs the committee. this is two hours and 15 minutes. >> a quorum being present, the committee will come to order. good morning. i'd like to begin by welcoming our guests and thanking our witnesses for joining us. we appreciate the time you've taken to share your thoughts and expertise with the committee. college sports have become a favorite past time for millions of americans, whether filling out a tournament bracket, never

works for me by the way, tailgating on a saturday afternoon, for many fans, college sports is a way to spend time with loved ones and stay connected with old friends. fans are known for their loyalty, student athletes are renowned for their passion and talent. for some competing at the collegiate level is a step toward a career in professional sports. for most student athletes, playing a sport is a ticket to an education they simply couldn't access without an scholarship. their dreams can be turned upside i down by a sports related injury. when that happens, institutions must step up and provide the health care and academic support the student needs. most institutions are doing just that and stand by their athletes for the long haul. but some are not. no student athlete injured while representing their school on the

field should be left behind because of the misplaced priorities of a college or university. can the ncaa and institution to do more to protect students? absolutely. they can start by giving students a greater roll in shaping policies that govern college athletics and work to ensure that a sports injury doesn't end a student's career. while promoting change is often difficult, student athletes deserve a determined effort. does that mean unionizing student athletes is the answer? absolutely not. franklin d. roosevelt declared, quote, a better relationship between labor and management is the high purpose of the act. it's hard to manage president roosevelt thought the law would one day apply to the relationship between student athletes and academic institutions yet that is precisely where we are. a regional director of the

national labor relations board ruled that football players are employees of the school. the ballots cast in an april 25th election have. impounded pending review by the full board. given the track record of this, i suspect the board will rubber stamp the regional director's decision setting a dangerous precedent. in the meantime, schools, athletic organizations, students and the public are searching for answers to countless questions stemming from that unprecedented ruling. for example, what issues would a union representing college athletes raise at the bargaining table. would a union negotiate over the number and length of practices? perhaps they would bargain over the number of games. if management and union on an impasse, would they go on strike? would student athletes attend class and have access to financial aid? how would student athletes provide dues to the unions. would dues be deducted from scholarships before being disbursed to students or are they expected to pay out of

pocket. how would they shoulder the cost of joining the union. where will with the smaller colleges and universities find the money to do this. are these schools ready to make some difficult decisions such as cutting support to other athletic programs like lacrosse, field hockey or even raising tuition. and how will other policies affect our higher education system. are college campuses prepared for microunions and ambush elections, are they equipped to bargain with computing unions, will students be able to make a decision about joining a union in less than ten days while attending class and going to practice? these questions should be discussed before the students and administrators are forced to look at this. we share the concerns of players at that time progress is too slow. forming a union is not the answer.

treating student athletes as something they are not is not the answer. the challenges facing student athletes should be addressed in a way that protects the athletic and academic integrity of higher education. the recent decision takes a fundamentally different approach that could make it harder for students to access a quality education. i strongly urge the obama board to change course. and encourage key stakeholders to get to work. i look forward to today's discussion and will now recognize the senior democratic member of the committee, mr. george miller, for his opening remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad we're having a hearing to better understand what is happening in college athletics. to air out the very legitimate grievances that have been raised at northwestern university and around the country. the days when student athletes really were "students" first and when college sports was just about learning teamwork, self-discipline, sportsmanship, while getting exercise and friendly competition, those days are pretty much over in high-level athletic programs.

during the last four decades colleges and universities through the ncaa have perfected the art of monetizing athletic play of their best football and basketball players and teams while steadily encroaching on the players' academic opportunities. they have created nothing less than a big sports empire. the empire's consumed and driven by a multi-billion dollar exclusive television, radio, multi-media deals, branding agreements, primetime sports shows, celebrity coaches with seven-figure salaries. our nation's talented athletes have become commodities within this empire. they are units of production that are overscheduled and overworked, left without safeguards for their health and safety, encouraged to put their education on the back burner in favor of success on the field. some athletes have figured this out and are now starting to ask smart questions about this whole arrangement. they want to know what happens to them if they suffer a catastrophic injury on the field that leaves them without -- with a lifetime disability. will they lose their scholarship? and with it the chance of an

education and a career? how much of their health care will they and their families need to pay out of pocket? they're reading about new studies on long-term effect of head injuries and they want to know if the schools and coaches are doing all that they can to prevent concussion and brain injury on the field. will their health come first when the decision is being made about whether or not they're fit to play? or will their team's desire to win trump the health concerns of the individual player? they're raising questions about the adequacy of their scholarships and the restrictions that leave them with little or no support or out-of-pocket and incidental expenses they face. why are some of the teammates finding themselves unable to afford enough food to eat or books for their classes while the university makes millions from their effort? they want to know why so many players didn't finish their academic programs. they want to discuss a fair transfer policy. how can policies be changed to support the player's success in academics, not just athletics? the national labor relations board decision regarding northwestern university football players documents an

all-consuming sometimes eye-popping demand of a college football player in today's mega profit driven ncaa world. at northwestern, the daily life of a football player revolves around practice and preparation, commonly a 40 to 50-hour week commitment during the fall season, with any classes or homework squeezed on top. you can see the sample schedule displayed here, i believe, on the screen of the northwestern players. it's over underneath the screen, excuse me. players are expected to report to the training room by 6:15 on monday mornings for their medical checks by 7:00 a.m., various team and position meetings, then pads and helmets until noon. at night they meet with coaches to review game films. and there is always the agility drills, conditioning, weightlifting, workouts and playbooks to study in between. from the beginning of the month-long august training camp through the grueling 12-week season to postseason bowl play and to mid-january, winter

warmups to february winning edge week to mandatory spring workouts to high-stakes football preparation, not academic obligations become the focus of these players' lives and the obsession of their coaches. meanwhile, players worry about their health and safety, their financial future, their prospects for jobs after graduation. the big business empire of college sports is doing very well. its revenues are up 32% in the last six years. and many universities are hiking tuition and fees turning to underpaid, overstretched adjunct faculty, and cutting students' services. the ncaa and the superstar football programs are making more and more money and the athletes they depend on are getting less and less. in the end, this is a classic labor dispute. the ncaa empire is holding all the cards, making all the rules, capturing all the profits. the hardest-working, most valuable components in this system, the players are left with little to say, little leverage, and no blocking or tackling but themselves. by banding together and bargaining, these athletes can win the kinds of things union workers have demanded and won across the country.

a say about avoiding serious injury on the job. medical benefits and securities if something goes wrong. meaningful input into how they will balance their work. in this case, football is their work. with their academic needs and their other responsibilities. the respectful treatment and care they so richly deserve. i look forward to today's hearings and hearing from today's witnesses about how we can do more to help protect and support these hard-working student employees. >> thank you, gentleman. pursuant to committee rule 7-c all committee members will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. without objection the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be included in the official hearing record. it's my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel. in light of my failing voice and the very, very long resumes of our witnesses i'm going to be extraordinarily brief. starting to my left we have the

honorable ken starr, president and chancellor of baylor university in waco, texas. mr. bradford livingston is a partner in seaforth shaw llp in chicago, illinois. mr. andy schwarz is a partner at oskr llc in emeryville, california. mr. bernard muir is director of athletics for stanford university in stanford, california. and mr. patrick eilers is managing director at madison dearborn partners in chicago, illinois and former minnesota viking. okay. i couldn't stop. before i recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly remind everyone of the five-minute lighting system. the system is pretty straight-forward. when i recognize you you'll have five minutes to give your testimony. the light will be green, after four minutes it will turn yellow. i would hope that you would be looking to wrapping up your testimony. when it turns red please wrap up

as expeditiously as you can. i'm loathe to gavel down a witness. we're here to listen to you, you're here to give us the benefit of your expertise. i'm less loathe to gavel down our colleagues when we get into our five-minute questioning system. please try to be respectful of the other witnesses and wrap up your testimony. all right. let's start with the honorable ken starr. sir, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's an honor to be here and to discuss this very important issue for private higher education as the chair kindly recognized. i serve as president and chancellor at baylor university. i've served as president and ceo of baylor university since june of 2010. baylor university is located in waco, texas. it is a private christian university. it is ranked as a high research comprehensive university.

and it's a vibrant community home to over 15,000 students, including over 600 student athletes. baylor is a founding member of the big 12 conference established in 1994. we sponsor 19 varsity teams. very blessed at baylor to have student athletes who succeed both in the classroom and on the playing field. over the past three years, baylor university has been the most successful division i program in combined winning percentages of football and men's and women's basketball. but these accomplishments do not count, ultimately, in terms of what we emphasize at baylor. as commencement approaches next weekend on our campus, we are celebrating our academic accomplishments. like we gather together monday evening at baylor's farrell center to do exactly that, to

honor our student athletes' performance in the classroom. during the prior academic year, mr. chairman, 86% of senior student athletes at baylor received their undergraduate degrees and many have gone on to pursue advanced degrees. this past fall semester the grades are not in for the spring, our student athletes achieved a cumulative gpa of 3.27. that's an all-time high. and 347 of our student athletes were named to the big 12 commissioners' honor roll. so these are remarkable times for baylor and its athletic program. yet the reality is that even in these best of times, college athletics, including at baylor, is not a profit-generating activity. it does not generate profits for baylor, nor for the vast majority of institutions of higher education.

the nlrb regional director's recent decision in the northwestern university case has characterized our student athletes as employees. this is an unprecedented ruling, as the chairman noted, and in our view it's misguided. the term student athletes is real on our campus. we would invite members to come to our campus and see for themselves. at bottom it is a relationship which provides a college education and even beyond. that at baylor, student athletes are first and foremost students and they are expected to be and required to be. we are far removed from a professional sports franchise. we are dedicated to each and every student's welfare, including our student athletes. now at baylor and across the nation, student athletes benefit from a wide array of services that are specifically designed

to maximize their potential as students. and then to prepare the student athletes for their journeys in life after college. these services and programs contribute significantly to their ultimate academic success. they include academic advising, degree planning, career counseling, many institutions including baylor provide very high-quality academic support such as tutoring service, computer labs, and study lounges. we have study hall. student athletes also receive specific financial benefits which help them progress toward degree completion. and these traditional benefits are very familiar. tuition, room, board, fees, books and other related educational expenses. now, what's the purpose? the purpose in offering financial assistance is to encourage our student athletes to carry on and to complete

their academic work and the vast majority do. now, the nlrb has expressed a view that the legal issue of employee status is ultimately a matter of congressional intent. and we agree with that. in this instance, however, the regional director has mechanically, and we believe erroneously, applied a rigidly wooden test drawn from the common law, notwithstanding as the chairman suggested the absence of any congressional intent to include college athletics as an employment venue. now, the decision by its terms applies only to private institutions. but it does create a dichotomy. for example, the decision rightly notes that northwestern university is nonsectarian. but the nlrb has been struggling in various dimensions with religious liberty limitations on its own jurisdiction. so we should reasonably expect

some private religiously affiliated universities to challenge the board's authority to be regulating institutional missions expressly grounded in a religious world view. the second and more structurally significant disparity is the decision's implicit exclusion of state institutions and intercollegiate athletics, private universities compete with state institutions, and this will likely create many discrepancies among the nation's universities. >> thank you. mr. livingston, you're recognized. >> good morning, mr. chairman, members of the committee. good morning, mr. chairman, and members of the committee. as the supreme court has noted, principles developed is nlra's purposes in allowing employees the free to choose whether or not to form a labor union and bargain collectively, the nlrb itself has recognized the

problem of attempting to force the student university relationship into the traditional employer/employee framework. that problem is apparent here. a university's primary mission is to educate its students, including student athletes. student athletes are neither hired by a college nor providing it services for compensation. athletes are students who are participating in its programs. with a dual role as both student and athlete, treating these participants as nlra covered employees changes them from students who are student athletes to professional athletes who are also students. but even if student athletes could be considered employees, and the term is unconfined in the nlra, employee status conflicts with the remaining principles contained in that act. consistent with labor agreements from other industries, a college athlete's union could negotiate over the scheduling and duration of practice time, distribution of playing time, scholarship allocation by dollar value, and

player position. where they're nonbargaining unit players, in this case walk-ons, have the right to play in game and the broad range of statutory wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment described in nlrb precedent. they could likewise negotiate over academic standards, including minimum grade point averages, class attendance requirements, the number and form of examinations or papers in any course, grievance procedures to challenge a professor's grade, and even potentially graduation requirements. and unlike with statutory requirements, a college cannot refuse to bargain over changes to its own, its conference, or ncaa rules. eventual differences in the conditions under which collegiate teams practice and compete will guarantee competitive imbalances. if college football players are employees, the nlra makes it clear they may organize in an appropriate bargaining unit, not the most appropriate bargaining unit.

because the petition for a unit will be considered appropriate unless a larger group shares an overwhelming interest with that group, a college would have difficulty proving the remainder of the football team shares an overwhelming community of interest if a labor union seeks to represent just the team's offense, perhaps just its quarterbacks. different potential union rules among discrete groups within one team are modest however compared to what will happen when college teams compete under different work rules negotiated with a their respective unions. in professional sports every team has a private employer under the nlra's jurisdiction that can be covered under a single collective bargaining agreement. the major professional sports leagues have collective bargaining agreements that cover the league and all of its teams. those agreements provide a relatively level playing field, whether with salary caps, minimum wage progressions, free

agency, drug testing protocols, and revenue sharing. unlike professional leagues, the same will not be true in college football. because its jurisdiction is limited to private employers, the nlrb is creating rules for student athletes at only 17 schools. fewer than 15% of the participants. it is almost certain that the nlra's regime for recognizing and bargaining with unions will not apply to the remaining 85% that are public universities governed by state laws and beyond the nlrb's jurisdiction. some states expressly regulate public sector employee collective bargaining. others often either limiting it to certain subjects or types of employees. other states have no laws or prohibit public sector bargaining entirely. a bill before ohio's house of representatives clarifies that student athletes at its public colleges and universities are not employees. conversely too, connecticut legislators indicate they will

introduce legislation stating their public college athletes are in fact employees. without a unified collective bargaining agreement like the nba or nfl every college team must fend for itself with its employee athletes. athletic departments that can afford it may be able to hire the best employers. institutions with fortunes and job offers are not as robust may attract lesser talent. the resulting patchwork of conflicting statuses as employees are not bargaining rights, labor contracts, and student athlete rules will create competitive imbalances. the national labor relations act is not an appropriate vehicle to address student athletes' concerns or disputes with their colleges and universities, athletic conferences, or the ncaa. for these and the other reasons contained in my written testimony, treating these student athletes as employees covered by the nlrb is simply unworkable. mr. chairman and members of the committee, i thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you today.

>> thank you. mr. schwarz, you're recognized. >> chairman kline, ranking member miller, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify on these issues related to college football. my name's andy schwarz, i'm an economist who specializes in anti-trust and the economics of college sports. i'm a partner with the firm oskr but i'm testifying today solely on my own behalf. as the members of the committee know, the nlrb authorized an election for northwestern football athletes. so to start i want to provide a few facts from those proceedings. scholarship football athletes at northwestern devote 40 to 60 hours per week during a five-month season. 15 to 25 hours per week the rest of the year. they receive no academic credit. they're not supervised by faculty. and football is not a direct part of the curriculum of their undergraduate majors. i understand this panel is focused on unintended consequences of unionizing college football so i want to

explain the biggest threat to college sports from collective action is the price-faxing cartel called the ncaa. by price fixing 351 division i schools including my beloved stanford stifle healthy economic competition through collusion to impose limits on all forms of athlete compensation. college football is an enormously popular consumer product, generates passion from fans, and billions in revenues from schools for broadcast television networks, for merchandisers and apparel companies. fbs football is a professional sports industry. fbs football alone reported $3.2 billion in revenue in the most recent federal filings. d-1 basketball another $1.4 billion. individual athletic departments regularly generate more revenue than almost all nhl and nba teams. former ncaa president miles brand explained maximizing revenue was the only responsible path for college sports. that's exactly how a vibrant business should behave.

but there's an economic dark side to college sports that comes from collective action which is price fixing. the nlra and the anti-trust laws work together to ensure that when sports leagues and athletes form partnerships, negotiations are fair. and either choice is valid. in a unionized collective bargaining path or a more free market approach governed by anti-trust laws. given the one-sided power imposed by collusion it's not surprising players have turned to labor law and unionization for a modicum of bargaining power. other american sports involve a league negotiating with a union to achieve a competitive outcome. leagues generally encourage unionization. in 2011, the nfl players sought to end their union but the nfl went to court to demand they remain a union. against the players' wishes. as an economist, i focus on the athletes' free market value which is high. but as a union cap is focused on very different things, they're

focused on enhancing educational and safety component of the bargain, better medical coverage, reducing head trauma, improving graduation rates, establishing educational trust funds to ensure athletes can finish their degrees. because of time limits i'll summarize my points and leave the rest for the questioning period. because most athletes do not go on to work in the nfl, ncaa collusion effectively denies 95% or more of college athletes of their four best sports earning years of their entire career. for some those may be their four best earning years. money that would go to male athletes is instead funneled to coaches and into elaborate recruiting palaces. college football coaches can make as much as $7 million a year. shunting money to coaches also deprives women athletes of title ix matching funds. collusion shifts the burden from a private school like northwestern to taxpayer-funded pell grants, food stamps, by forcing students to leave school to support their families. the current tax code exempts

from taxation the tuition portion of athletic scholarships as well as tuition remission paid to university employees as part of a broader compensation package. nothing in the nlrb ruling should change that. if it did, congress itself has the power to make sure that doesn't happen. finally, the ncaa limits consumer choice with a centrally planned one size fits all product offering. i also want to say that the student -- term student athletes itself was created to dodge legal responsibilities for athletes' safety and to avoid economic competition. but the resources for -- from new tv deals alone are sufficient for an orderly transition from a command and control economy to a market-based one. americans have a legal right to economic markets free of collusion. until that right is respected for college athletes, of course they'll seek collective alternatives. an athlete who has bargained individually or collectively to ensure he's well fed, given real access to a full range of majors

and programs at his school, provided with health and safety rules that lower the risk of serious head trauma or life long disability, is going to be in a better position to benefit from a true education than a hungry or concussed athlete forced into a dead-end major. thank you for your time. >> thank you. mr. muir, please. >> chairman kline, ranking member miller, and members of the committee. i am pleased to be here to provide some comments about the experiences of student athletes at stanford university. my comments are specific to stanford and are not focused on the details of the case currently before the national labor relations board. i hope to help illuminate some of the larger issues you are addressing today. stanford has 7,000 undergraduate students and nearly 9,000 graduate students. and the university's recognized internationally for its academic quality. we offer 36 varsity sports, 20 for women, 16 for men. about 900 students participate in intercollegiate sports. 53% of the men and 47% of them women.

stanford has won the director's cup which honors the most successful program in ncaa division i sports for the last 19 years. we're proud of athletic achievements of our student athletes. what i want to emphasize in my testimony this morning is in athletics we never lose sight of the university's larger mission. stanford as a university first and its academic mission comes first. we believe the most important thing for our student athletes, walk out the door when they leave stanford with a stanford degree. 97% of our student athletes achieve this goal. including 93% of our football student athletes. the athletic experience is not pursued at the expense of the academic experience. or separate and apart from it. each enhances the other. one out of every eight undergraduate students at stanford is a student athlete. so this is not a separate group. having a separate experience from the rest of the student body. they're in the same classes, the same laboratories, the same undergraduate housing. they have the same exam schedules. even if it means to take a

proctored examination on the road. the same degree completion requirements as other students. the rigor of the academic enterprise begins with the admissions process. stanford does not admit anyone it is not confident can succeed academically at the university. stanford reviews each applicant for undergraduate admission holistically, looking at academic excellence, intellectual vitality, the personal context each brings to the table. this evaluation occurs in the admissions office independent of the athletic department. our student athletes demonstrate how importantly they view a stanford education by taking all steps they need to complete it. as two brief examples, andrew luck of the indianapolis colts and pitcher mark appel of the houston astros organization both bypassed the opportunity to leave stanford with a year of eligibility left and enter the professional sports world. instead, they remained at stanford to complete their degree. even among the few stanford athletes student athletes who do not complete a degree before

becoming professional athlete many do come back to finish later. the majority of our student athletes will not go on to earn a living in professional sports but whatever path they take their stanford experience will provide them with outstanding preparation for success in the world. the academic grounding they receive is solid and the athletic experience builds on it by teaching leadership, strategy, team dynamics, problem solving, and other capacities critical to success. i discuss all these issues more extensively in my written testimony before you. i want to address a related question about how revenue from athletics is used. at stanford, while football and men's basketball generate net revenue through ticket sales and tv contracts the vast majority of our 36 sports do not. all the revenue that the university receives from these two sports is used to support the overall athletic program, including the 87% of our student athletes who participate in those other 34 sports. we use these revenues to support athletic opportunities for the broad cross-section of our students, both men and women,

providing these opportunities is very important to us. let me close by discussing how we address the needs and concerns of student athletes. we work hard to ensure both their academic and athletic experiences of our student athletes are excellent and properly supported. soliciting honest feedback from our students is critical to that objective and we have a variety of avenues for doing so. many of the issues that have been identified by the union seeking to represent student athletes are issues we are already addressing at stanford. although there are areas where our actions are governed by ncaa regulations we're always open to making improvements that are within our purview and to working with the ncaa to improve its rules on issues such as minimum academic progress for student athletes and scholarships that include fair stipends for student athletes' expenses. i hope the strengths and benefits of programs such as ours will be considered as the national discussion continues. i recognize there is a variation on these issues from school to school and while i've been speaking about stanford, there

may well be differences at other institutions. stanford stands ready to talk with and work with others who are likewise interested in continually improving the experience of student athletes across the country. thank you. >> thank you. mr. eilers. >> mr. chairman, ranking member miller, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and present my views on the ongoing quest to improve the environment for student athletes on college campuses. before i do so, i would like to make it clear that my comments today are strictly my own. although i was a student athlete at the university of notre dame, and later attained a master's degree from the kellogg graduate school of management at northwestern university, i do not speak for nor do i represent these institutions. i speak only for myself. i graduated from the university of notre dame in 1989 with a bachelor of science degree in biology. by also pursuing a second undergraduate degree in

mechanical engineering which i received a year later. while i was a student at notre dame i played four years of varsity football and also played on varsity baseball team. i had transferred from yale university the beginning of my sophomore year and had a fifth year of academic eligibility, affording me the opportunity to complete my second degree. i transferred to notre dame to pursue excellence in the classroom and on the football field. i felt notre dame offered me the opportunity to do well in both. while it wasn't easy, it certainly was achievable. the infrastructure was and remains in place to assist student athletes to achieve at notre dame. i have a daughter who is currently a collegiate student athlete there. i have witnessed even further improvements in the program, such as mandatory study hall for all incoming freshmen athletes. i am here today as a former collegiate student athlete. i am not an attorney and versed in labor law so i'll leave the legal argument to the experts to

my right. the impetus for today's panel is the nrlb regional director's ruling that college athletes are deemed employees. which would enable them to potentially unionize under the national labor relations act. the union pursuit is a means to an end, a vehicle if you will to implement improvements to our collegiate athletic system. i believe there is little debate about necessary logical improvements which i will describe. i believe the debate today should instead be focused on seeking the most effective vehicle to cause the implementation of these improvements. the crux of the problem is that the student athlete should be students first and foremost. i'm concerned that calling student athletes employees will make the system more of a business than it already is. in my mind, we need to gravitate collegiate athletics toward a student-centric model, not the other way around.

i also worry about the unintended consequence of being deemed an employee and what unionization could bring to college athletics. that said, as a former student athlete, i support many of the goals of the national college players association and the college athletes players association that the ranking member described in front. i favor mandated four-year scholarships, health insurance benefits, and stipends. i will address transfer eligibility briefly. four-year scholarship. as a student athlete you should be able to maintain an athletic scholarship for at least four, debatable five, years from the date you entered college. assuming you maintain the school's academic and disciplinary standards. with the goal of obtaining an undergraduate degree. the obligation should be maintained regardless of your productivity on the athletic field and even if you sustain a permanent injury. the sad reality at some colleges

is if the student athlete is not performing on their field, their athletic scholarship may not be renewed year to year. this incenses student athletes to focus on scholarship renewal at all costs rather than striking the balance of performance in the classroom and on the field of play. health and insurance benefits. after sustaining a sports-related injury a student athlete's scholarship should neither be reduced nor eliminated and there should be guaranteed coverage for medical expenses for current and former players. student athletes that sustain permanent injuries should be afforded health care and insurance benefits for life. i also hasten to add that all college athletic programs should enhance their efforts to minimize the risk of sports-related traumatic brain injuries. stipend. student athletes should be afforded stipends so they can handle out-of-pocket expenses associated with attending college. at the very least on a needs-based assessment. transfer.

if four-year scholarships are mandated, not at the option of each college, then i'm okay with current transfer restrictions. i was a product of these transfer restrictions. i was ineligible my sophomore year at notre dame. however, if honoring four-year scholarships is not required, then the one-time, no-penalty transfer option should be afforded to all student athletes, not just select sports. so in conclusion, these initiatives are, in my mind, obvious and necessary improvements. the first three have monetary implications which i recognize make them more difficult to implement for athletic programs that already operate in the red. however, i believe there is clearly plenty of money in the system for necessary improvements that's been highlighted. the national collegiate athletic association is "dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student athletes and equipping them with the skills to succeed on the playing field and in the classroom and throughout life."

if this mission statement is true, why then haven't these goals already been implemented? i believe this problem exists simply because the fact that the ncaa is a membership-driven organization "made up of colleges and universities but also conferences and affiliated groups." perhaps because of this charter it appears to me the ncaa may not have been able to get consensus from its diverse membership on these issues. i don't have a solution to this problem. but i question the need to unionize to effectuate the implementation of these initiatives. one final note. it is difficult to maintain that we truly have a student athlete system given the relatively low graduation rates for student athletes at many institutions across the country. this is not an acceptable outcome. and i don't see how classifying these student athletes as employees is going to improve this situation. so finally, i was a student athlete at notre dame. period.

i was not an employee of the university. nor did i want to be one. conversely, i played six years of professional football, including three here for the redskins, where i was an employee and i wanted to be one. thank you. i would be pleased to answer any questions you have. >> thank you. thank all the witnesses. true panel, true experts. because you're on a roll there, mr. eilers, i'm going to start with you. guy from st. paul that goes on to do all these things, we're very proud of you. i know that when you were at notre dame, i think you were part of a national championship team. and i'm just deeply disappointed you couldn't help the vikings be a super bowl team. you mentioned that your daughter is playing lacrosse at notre dame. and with her, watching her experience and your experience,

i'm wondering if you were ever discouraged at notre dame from taking a class or pursuing a major because you were a student athlete. >> i was not. and i think, further, they encouraged us to pursue our academic passions, mr. chairman. >> and you wisely moved on from a bachelor's degree in biology, which i also had found useless. if you -- i think probably most of us on this panel, i know i can't speak for everybody on both sides of the aisle, but you mentioned a lot of issues that could be and should be addressed. injuries, for example. you had sort of a list of things that ought to be looked at. and your conclusion was that that's something that the universities, notre dame and all of them, including baylor and stanford, ought to be addressing.

and that being a member of a union, the student athletes be a member of a union, being employees, wouldn't help that . am i oversimplifying your position there? >> i don't think you're oversimplifying. i would say that i think judge starr's baylor, bernard's stanford, notre dame, it is an option to provide four-year scholarships. each of our institutions provide that for our student athletes. that's not universally adopted across the country. and i think for a student athlete not to graduate from a university with a degree in hand is a total disservice. >> thank you. and i think, judge starr, you mentioned something like 86%. could you talk about your graduation rate for your student athletes again very quickly? >> yes. this last year, academic year, 82% did, in fact, graduate. a number did, in fact, as did pat go on to pursue degrees as well.

advanced degrees, graduate degrees. and here's the key point. it's individual choice. what is the culture? that's the responsibility of the university. does the university create a culture that encourages the student to do the best that he or she can? there are obviously important issues to be addressed. we completely agree with that and we're part of a conversation that is nationwide. with respect to what can we do better? we know there are things that can, in fact, be improved. especially the full cost of attendance. completely agree with that. but the real question, i think, with respect to the nlrb, mr. chairman, is are we going to, in fact, use the national labor relations act as a tool for negotiating improvements? and it seems to be exactly the wrong way to go. for starters if i may make one additional point, the collective bargaining agreement or the collective bargaining unit that

was recognized by the regional director doesn't include the entire football team. if you're a walk-on, one of the 35 members of the football team at northwestern, the representative, if the union is in fact elected, is not going to be representing you. you're going to be outside the unit. quite apart then from the nonrevenue sports. and that is a fundamental issue. we are treating all of our student athletes the same. and we want to, in fact, encourage this culture that we want you to go to school, we want you to earn your degree. and we want to help prepare you for your journey in life. >> thank you. mr. muir, back to stanford. in your testimony you talked about how football and basketball were moneymakers and that money went to the other sports. could you remind us again of how that distribution goes? >> yeah, the resources that we derive from our tv or media rights goes back into supporting 36 sports, in our case, which is one of the larger offerings around the country.

but it's to enhance that experience overall for all our student athletes, the 900 we support. we think that's very important. >> okay, thank you. mr. miller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. starr, i assume you weren't calling for a larger bargaining unit. >> no, it does raise, mr. >> i appreciate that. i just want to make clear. >> the continuity of interest, the community of interest. >> mr. eilers, i want to thank you very much for your testimony, because you testified in very straightforward manner about the issues that the students at northwestern were raising that are endemic, i believe, to the football programs around the country. and that really was, as you pointed out, the security of their scholarship, four-year scholarship, as opposed to year to year, that can be used as a weapon against the student or performance or to get out of -- to add somebody else to the squad. the health and insurance benefits.

the concern when you're injured or suffer disability as a result of that. or you lose your athletic ability, you lose your scholarship. these things start to accumulate on some students. the stipend issue that you've raised. and the transfer issue. student. the sti pend issue you raised and the transfer issue. these are the issues the students felt necessary to form a union around. i expect you'd find that if you travel to most of the college campuses that have sports programs that the students just feel they're caught up and are only there four years, five years, short, whatever period of time. they aren't being addressed. i find it interesting that other witnesses have held their testimony to that notion and that's their belief that this is a student athlete. your student athletes at northwestern said what about the athletic side of it? where we spend 50 hours a week. what is this imposition on us and what security do we have?

and apparently that can never quite get addressed. that brings me to you, mr. schwartz. if you read mr. livingston's testimony, he can tell you why this integral work between conferences and ncaa and the colleges and maybe even the media would not be a shield against issues raised by this bargaining unit. they could travel all over and has them going into the academic side. that same network is used as a weapon against the athletes. >> that's right. >> that same network is used as a weapon when they want to talk about, as our stipend fair, is our policy fair because they don't have any voice in that at all and the school is happy giving you a four-year degree. but that's not every school in the league, maybe not even in the pac-12. i don't know. we have to check with the conference. we're bound by the rules.

also remember today what conference you get in, i mean, conferences are like commodities. they are moving them around to generate tv revenues. it's no longer the old rivalries. it's what are the revenues that will be generated midweek, weekend playoffs. if you are a handful of student in the northwestern program, how you're going to be heard and get results during your career? >> sure. if i could just address a couple of things. one statement i heard is baylor treats all of its student athletes the same. that's not true. there's a cap on how many students can receive scholarships and walk-ons are prohibited from receiving scholarships if they exceed that. there's already a caste system that's created. that's a term that mr. muir has used to describe paying athletes that distinguishes between scholarship athletes and those who likely would get a scholarship if the school were

allowed to exercise individual choice. there's a cap that prevents it. the -- directly to your point, the way i like to think about the claim that schools are poor in their athletic departments is that it's similar to say a wall street banker who brings in $1 million of salary but maybe he's been divorced twice so he has alimony payments, maybe kids in college, a couple of mortgages. once he's done paying for all those things there's not a lot left and wall street banking doesn't pay that well. >> that's sort of the point the knight commission found in 2010. not enough money to provide those scholarships, to help the other sports but as they pointed out, the escalating coaches salaries are creating an unsustainab ablable growth. >> and $3 million into coach's salary, i recognize that's the exception but more and more people are joining that

fraternity. then you plead poor mouth that you can't quite take care of your athletic obligations campuswide. the ncaa has constructed a very interesting and overwhelming network to be used against these kind of questions being raised, even commissioned as prominent as the night commission that examined this impact and relationship of student athletes. and that's why these students chose to become employees because they recognize the situation they were in. classical employer/employee relationship. thank you. >> gentleman's time has expired. i ask unanimous consent to submit a letter from the american council on education which warns treating student athletes as employees would have a range of negative and troubling questions. >> i wish to submit an article from the stanford daily. student athletes have access to easy courses. >> without objection, both will

be entered in the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank all of our witnesses here today. you have provided some fascinating information to us, and i am grateful to you. someone who spent a lot of time and education and higher education, dealt with student athletes and students who weren't athletes. so i appreciate the information. judge starr, i understand baylor's priority is education. in fact, all of you have talked about that. would you describe how baylor's athletic programs work with the academic programs to ensure student athletes can prioritize their studies while also meeting their commitments to the team? >> one of the keys dr. foxx is the planning process that goes into developing the major, planning then the schedule and student athletes have priority in terms of registration so we

do not have a crowding out kind of question at all. and so throughout the academic year, there is a careful monitoring of that student's progress and if there are issues being identified, then those issues are going to be addressed. i think that's why we have seen a steady increase in recent years, even before my watch, but it is a point of personal emphasis an my watch that we want the student athletes to have that entire reservoir of support and that's why the gpa, cumulative gpa average is 3.27. it's a labor intensive and student athlete specifically focused activity. >> i'm assuming you have study halls? >> as elsewhere, mandatory for first years, for freshmen and then there are abundant study facilities available. they are very conveniently located as part of the academuc

and athletic center. >> let me come back to the regional director's opinion. he includes a list of restructions placed on athletes. he says they have to obtain permission from the coaches before applying for outside employment, posting items on the internet and speaking to the media. they are also prohibited from using alcohol and drugs and engaging in gambling. a judge this -- this may sound like a silly question, but please tell me why you place these restrictions on student athletes? >> it is to create a team culture and also to ensure as best we can, appropriate behavior. dr. foxx, when the student athlete arrives, he or she is presented with the student athletic handbook and the earliest pages say here's the kind of behavior that is forbidden. because it reflects poorly on the university, poorly on the

team and it's destructive of the culture of the team. there are a number prove hibitions but they are all grounded in human experience. these are things the student athlete should not be doing. >> some of those things are things no student should be doing, correct? >> that is correct. when you go through the thou shall not list it is very comparable to that of any other student. there are obviously some athletics specific activity but it is, in fact, a community of rules that we're in community together and these are the rules that bind us all. >> i'd like to ask you this question and then if mr. muir has an opportunity to respond to it also, i would appreciate it. we know that the decision made by the nlrb gentleman has implications beyond the nlra.

it has implications for title 9 of the education amendments of 1972, workers' compensation laws, tax law, fair labor standards act. could all be implicated. would you tell us your thoughts on the possible implications of these laws for baylor and then mr. muehr for stanford? >> i think very serious issues with respect to title nine in particular. if the football scholarship student athletes are all employees, then in fact, it's going to create a very serious issue in terms of then balance with respect to what title nine requires. there are going to be a host of other issues as well. injuries are important. health is very important. we're very sensitive to that. and, therefore, the question will be triggered, does osha have jurisdiction in this context as well? so i think it's going to raise a hornet's nest of issues. >> yes, i believe if we go down that path, first and foremost, our students are students first.

and we want to ensure that. many of the issues the northwestern student athletes raise are issues we're already covering at stanford. if we go down the path eventually that we all our students student athletes employees and they just become a true working relationship, then i do think some of those things as title nine and making sure we provide a broad offering for all of our students becomes at risk. the pressures become greater. >> gentle lady's time has expird. mr. bishop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to our panel, thank you for your testimony. mr. eilers, thank you for your testimony. you highlighted some of the issues that i want to talk about. you described the effort at northwestern as a means to an end. i think it's also fire describe it as a cry for help. i think that we talk about having the student athletes interest at the center of what we do. and i used to run a college. it was a division 2 school.

there's really nobody talking for the students. i think that's happening at northwestern is this san effort to get somebody to listen. i want to address this to judge starr and to 3mr. muir. you both represent -- you both are members of very large conferences, and i want to just go over what the players at northwestern are asking for. they are asking for efforts to minimize college athletes' brain trauma risks. they are asking to prevent players from being stuck paying sports related medical expenses. they are asking that graduation rates increase. they are asking that educational opportunities for student athletes in good standing be protected. they are asking that universities be prohibited from using a permanent injury suffered during athletics as a

reason to reduce or eliminate a scholarship. they are asking to establish and enforce uniform safety guidelines in all sports to help prevent serious injuries and avoidable deaths, and they are asking to prohibit the punishment of college athletes that have not xhited a crime. is in any one on that list that's unreasonable? is there any piece of that that your institution would say, no, i'm awfully sorry, we can't do that. or let me phrase it positively. would you each be willing to lead an effort in your respective conferences to see to it that your fellow member institutions say, absolutely, guys. you are absolutely right. we're going to do it. it's the right thing to do? >> mr. bishop, i think that that series of questions, they are in fact, important. they are legitimate, and we are, in fact, continually working toward addressing them. take the concussion policy. the ncaa has a concussion policy

and requires members to, of our conference requires it and we have a concussion policy. we continually monitor that. there are studies under way from the university of virginia. and the ncaa has personally -- has directly funded a study that's -- so this is evolving science. yes, we want to -- >> here's my question. i'm sorry, i don't mean to be rude but i only have five minutes. should we not -- if uniization is as bad as so many of you think it is should we not use this as a catalyst, not just talk about conversations and not just talk about, yes, we're looking at it and studying. let's do it. you are very powerful institutions in very powerful conferences that people look to for leadership. can you not just say, we're going to lead an effort to make this happen? >> briefly, i believe it is happening. can we move more quickly? of course. you can always move more quickly.

but it is in fact, a serious conversation. these issues are under serious review and it's not just a conversation. things are -- the ncaa, the cost of attendance for the -- >> my question is, in these conversations, who is speaking for the student athlete? >> i would say there's a multiple of individuals speaking for the student athletes, including the student athletes themselves. we hear a number of our constituencies, both on and off campus both saying we need the student athletes' voice. certainly we're being attentive to that. our presidents are at the table. they are constantly thinking about this. they are trying to take leadership roles. athletic directors. i was at a meeting yesterday. again, this is a prominent discussion point because we want to make sure the student athletes' experience is the best it can possibly be. we need to enhance it. >> i hope we can somehow collectively get to the point where we hold student

athletes -- hold coaches to the same standards. a coach can break a contract with impugn irt. when you left yale you had to sit out a year. i don't understand why it is a coach can break a contract with impunity and a student athlete is penalized if he wants to move from one institution to another institution that he thinks better serves his needs. mr. eilers, you want to comment? >> i think i said it in my testimony, but i do think if you are -- and i don't understand why we can't get there. people should go to college to get degrees first and foremost. part of their educational experience was participating in a sports related program like someone would do drama, speech, debate, what have you. it'sed me me who i am today. it's made me a better father, a better husband, better person and better businessperson. i would disagree with mr. schwarz characterization that separate and distinct from your educational experience.

i think it's integral. and what we need to do is make sure student athletes have the ability to go to an institution for four years and learn a degree and leave with a degree. i would respectfully disagree that there should be some quid pro quo. that person should make a commitment to that coach to give them four years of service coming out of high school. if we don't do that, though, then i would submit what you are suggesting. we should allow people to then flow around. it should be equal. i want a two-way street to be equal for both parties. >> gentleman's time has expired. dr. roe? >> just to clarify a coup 7le o things. full disclosure. the head basketball coach and athletic director where i went to college, dave loose, did both jobs for a long time. this is a middivision i school.

i'm absolutely committed to athletics. i donated money to help build the athlet strick at the college. you pointed out about how much money the ncaa is but most don't live at that lofty level. i just pulled up, most colleges lose money in athletics. a few of the big areas do. big schools do. at austin p., it's a $9 million budget a year. not a $90 million budget. and most schools at that level are struggling. i realize this is unionization at a private university not a state university. but i agree, mr. bishop, you can transfer now, without loss of a time if you transfer at a different level. if you go up in division -- >> just to clarify that for everyone. either mr. livingston or -- maybe judge starr, i think this

ruling, what concerns me is -- at least when i played sports it was fun. you made it sound like some sort of drudgery. golf is sometimes, but for the most part, sports are fun. mr. eilers added his experience as a student athlete and it made him a better -- he mentioned it very eloquently. it did for me. it taught me, i learned a lot on the playing field i would never have learned in the classroom. do you think this ruling could potentially cause schools just to drop football or sports? >> we have to consider all options in terms of the best interest of the university. i know that the president of the university of delaware has said that he was a student athlete himself that the university of delaware would not be able to continue. it's a public university. so it really is raising a host of serious questions. i think it could, in fact, at a minimum cause programatic curtailments.

it raises the issue we talked about rnd title nine. how do you achieve the title nine very important balance to achieve as a matter of policy and as a matter of law. it is simply the wrong way to go to address these very important issues. the number of questions that are raised are so myriad. they are just remarkably wide ranging. and i don't think there's a real answer for most of these questions. the fair labor standards act is yet another. the antitrust laws themselves that were emphasized earlier. it's bringing us into a sea of complete uncertainty. >> i agree. excuse me. go ahead. >> if i might add, the issue that mr. schwarz talked about in terms of the protection for entire leagues, where they all belong under one collective bargaining agreement, is absolutely correct for professional sports. that does not exist in college sports.

the nlrb only would govern 17 out of the approximately 120 schools that play football. and so you end up with a potential arms race for those who can afford it and others, as judge starr said, may decide to make a decision to get rid of it. sports are competitive. the teams that want to win are going to pay their way up to win. >> i think if northwestern unionizes, they'll play 12 homecoming games is what i think they're going to do. in the event they can't agree on terms and conditions is it possible student athletes will strike? >> it's traditional tool and collective bargaining. and that itself raises not only justice the idea seems to be unthinkable, but the football team goes on strike. then what about the nonscholarship athletes? again, that's the incoherence of the collective bargaining agreement. does that mean they also walk out on class? if they are employees, then what

is their relationship to the academic enterprise? >> mr. eilers, i think you said it. when i was in college, students were true student athletes. our quarterback had a 4.0 as a math major. there are many who use athletics to enhance -- you were obviously an incredible athlete because you played professional football. you for you got into the professional leagues. i think your comments were spot on. that's the way we should look at it. a student athlete. some students play in the band. some -- and they practice for hours some go to rotc. they work very hard and drama and other things. and so i'll give you the final say on this. >> the gentleman's time has expired. brilliant timing. mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think listening to the testimony, most people, i think, would agree that what happened at northwestern was because the

ncaa has created a vacuum in terms of students being treated fairly. if you look at the mission statement of the college athlights players association, one of the mission statement items is to provide better due process and sanction actions. i represent the university of connecticut. we had a pretty exciting spring. shabazz napier made two incredible, i think, courageous comments dearing the course of the lead-up to the tournament, describing in a way that may be embarrassing to some that sometimes he went to bed hungry at night because of the nickel and dime mickey mouse ncaa rules in terms of defining what universities can provide to students. was kind of almost comical to see him rush to announce a new rule on april 15th that now has changed and reformed that. not because of what mr. napier said, but, you know, for a lot of us, it seems tat times the only thing that changes is

external pressure. that's what this event at northwestern has produced. we wouldn't be having this hearing to talk about the plight of students but for the actions of those students. frankly, there are other times the sanctions process is par more pernicious than missing a midnight snack. we look at what mr. napier said about the fact this is what happens when you ban us. the due process, and i use that term loosely, that the ncaa engages in, unfortunately far too many times shoots the bystander in an effort to comport with some measure of student athletes. that school was banned because of a cohort of students who had poor academic performance and no one is going to dispute that. in 2007, not one player on that team was around at the university when those scores triggered an apr finding that

with a four-year lookback period, yet they found themselves in a situation they were banned from postseason play because of a rule that makes no sense. by the way, other schools are doing the one and done system which, you know, try and explain that to the average person why that's okay, and yet a student like shabazz napier is punished. he's going to graduate in a couple of weeks, getting his full degree. he's getting punished for something that somebody he never knew -- i'm very skeptical, frankly, of the protections for students who get swept up in this bizarre byzantine system of trying to comport with some definition of student athletes. with all due respect to the witnesses, i don't think the colleges and universities because they have their own pressures of not rocking the boat to provide real honest to god advocacy for students giting

swept up. perry joenss iii was disqualified at baylor because his mother took three small loans when he was a high school sophomore before he even went to baylor. yet he was punished later on in his college career because his mother was in desperate financial situation and took a short-term loan from a coach. i'm sure no one wants to vouch for that, but nonetheless, why would he get punished for that except for the ncaa's desperate attempt to somehow comport with a definition of student athlete. mr. schwarz, i guess when we talk about, you know, treating people with dignity because that's really what's so offensive about the way the ncaa violated patient rights in that miami investigation. the power that they can xhert, again, tramples on people's ability to have basic due process rights. and i wonder if you can put your

comments in that context. >> it's a great step the ncaa has started saying if a student wants to give an athlete a meal, they are allowed to. the individual choice to feed an athlete was prohibited beyond a certain number of meals. and that's the level of cartel control we see here. and you are exactly right the issue is not whether a benevolent organization will dane to provide the people who bring value with some crumbs. it's a voice. it's advocacy. i don't know how often james brown is quoted in here. he's saying i don't want nobody to give me nothing. open up the door, i'll get it myself. and that's effectively what the movement here is about. it's about saying give us some avenue. let us come in. it's an ncaa violation to come in and ask for money right now, as an example. you get permanently banned. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i want to commend him. the gentleman from connecticut,

for getting some bragging without mentioning the basketball word. >> certainly appreciate all of you being here today. i wanted to go to mr. livingston first and ask a few questions. mr. livingston, the nlrb regional director's decision in northwestern applies solely to private universities because state universities as state government, because state universities as state government entities are exclude from nlra coverage. that applies tonal a portion of universities in each conference and division. however, state law applies to state public colleges. >> there are a variety of differences. the states vary widely. the nlra covers organizing

rules, bargaining unit determinations, subjects of bargaining and the right to engage in economic action. all those differ under various state laws. for example, some prohibit public sector bargaining entirely. others prohibit public sector bargaining an limited terms. others don't have the right to engage in economic action. others would have interest arbitration. so you'd have different subjects being negotiated by different groups in different collective bargaining agreements. ultimately would end up with individual bargaining and unlevel playing field. different terms and different contracts. then when those teams compete, unlike in professional sports, you've got something that i simply don't think is workable. >> okay, i think that's an important point that if that scholarship athletes do organize, the union universities will bargain over terms and conditions of employment. and that parties are compelled to bargain over mandatory subjects of bargaining.

what terms and conditions of employment are mandatory subjects of bargaining? >> i appreciate the comments we've heard about the need for college athletics to improve and to improve the student athlete. whether it's college athletes, players association or any other union. any other union has a right to organize. they could bargain about a wide variety -- that's so broad that it would cover compensation, signing bonuses, retention bonuses, hours of work. so in terms of schedules, potentially even class attendance, that while campus goals may be limited right now if they are certified at some organization based on member desires, maybe they become greater. any other union wouldn't be limited to the goals we heard

today. >> in the event student athliets unionize, they'll play dues. where do these dues come from. >> how they decide to do it is up to them. but rpd section 302 of though labor management relations act it's clear that an employer, in this case, the university, can't pay it. unless we're talking about wages in some form, the unions would have to answer that. >> we touched briefly earlier on taxation. these universities and organizations are tax exempt if a student becomes an employer, are they then subject to taxation and does that affect pell grants, ability to get student loans? where do we -- how do we go don that road? >> those are beyond my area of expertise, but i do believe that

others perhaps can answer that question. >> does somebody else have a comment on that? >> section 61 of the internal revenue code has a definition of what is income. if an individual is an employee, then very strong arguments. it's unsettled, but it's going to open up serious questions about the entire range of services, including the scholarship itself. there are issues presently with how respect to how a scholarship is treated. if they are employees, then it's compensation and presumptively taxable. >> if they are employees and you presume that they'd have to pay taxes on it, i would presume that the goals of any scholarship goeshlnegotiations, negotiations to take that into account. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. fudge. >> thank you mr. chairman and

thank you all for being here today. i want to make a couple of comments. want to go back to something my colleague mr. courtney said. i happen to have attended ohio state university. i knew a lot of the football players when i was in school. this issue was a problem then. it is an issue today. so why has it not been taken care of in more than 30 years? there is no reason for it. and but for the courageous actions of these young men, we wouldn't be talking about it today. and then for you, mr. livingston, the ohio state house who has determined that our athletes are not employees, just because they said it, doesn't make it so. these are the same people that want to restrict voting rights. just because they said it doesn't make it so. as well we do know that student athletes, that scholarship athletes are treated differently than those not on scholarship. we know it and just need to admit it. the restrictions they have and

the time commitment is much different than students who are nonscholarship students. first question, i'd really like to ask mr. schwarz, in your written testimony you mention the level of property the ncaa is making off student athletes. do you know if any of that profit is dedicated in any way to providing health benefits to those students? >> some of it is. most on field injuries, the immediate cost of that injury is covered. it's not required, but it is covered. long-term injuries that linger typically are less likely to be covered. so it's not always the case. >> could i add one quick thing. you mentioned that since you were in college there's been a problem about the cost of attendance stipends. the ncaa voted them away in 1973. they've been claiming they've been talking about bringing them back since 1973. in 1986 something was tried.

in 2006, something was tried. now they are telling you it's coming real soon. there's been a long history of it's coming real soon. >> thank you. the ncaa also doesn't want these young people to be able to make a living, the little bit that they can. i was around when the whole scandal at ohio state happened about some kids selling their own shirts. the shirts that they take off their back, they can't sell. i won't go into that one. but i would like to ask mr. star and mr. muir, what do your football and basketball coaches make annually? >> i don't have the number off the top of my head. it is substantial. it is a free market. we want to keep our coaches. we've had stability. i can get those for you. >> would you, please? >> i'm not at liberty to share the numbers. >> is it a secret? >> it's just something we don't share at stanford. but the same token -- >> that's the only thing i wanted to ask you. >> coach art briles made $2.4

million, scott drew made $2.1 million and the women's basketball coach made $1.3 million. at stanford, the number isn't published but in the one year jim harbaugh's salary rose above, sergeantions who are the top five employees, he made a little over $1 million. >> mr. starr, you mentioned earlier that, obviously, the goal of attending a college or university is to obtain a degree. do you also realize for division i football athletes and men's basketball players the graduation rates across the board hover around 50%? >> at baylor it's higher. at baylor it's 62% for men's basketball team but i could not agree more, ms. fudge. we need to create, especially in men's basketball, but to a considerable degree in football as well, this culture of student athlete. and it begins with the coaches, the head coach. but the entire infrastructure

has to be oriented toward that. at the same time, these are young men and young women making their own choices. they decide what's important for them. all we can do is create a culture that -- of encouragement and of genuine support. >> thank you very much. i see my time is -- i'll yield it back, mr. chairman. thank you all. >> thank you very much. i'll be brief. anyone can answer this question. do athletic scholarships give potential academic opportunities to students who otherwise not -- would not have them available to them because of surely based on their ability to play a sport? mr. muir? >> i would say that the opportunity to attend the institution like stanford and compete at the highest level and get a quality education, we had less than 5% be admitted this

past year. 40,000 applications. and so when our coaches present young people with an opportunity to come and compete at stanford, it's a wonderful experience. i think our kids understand and cherish that opportunity. as i said with the high graduation rate, they understand they are part of the fabric of the place. >> there's a very significant opportunity for first generation college attendees. so it is a door opener. it has been historically. i believe the ncaa said approximately 15% of student athletes who receive scholarships are first generation. no one has attended college in their family. it's a great part of the american story. >> thank you. i just have a brief comment. i think we all here today, people testifying and members on both sides know that there are substantial issues we're discussing today and i'm hopeful this discussion will continue and make things better for and

improvements to our college athletic system so that young people across the country can continue to compete, but also as many of you have outlined, more importantly, have access to an educational experience that helps them in their future careers and down the line. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> this is a very interesting hearing, and i appreciate your expertise, all of the witnesses who are here today. mr. eilers, you talked about how the debate should be about what's the best way to address the goal. and i really appreciate that. i know that some of my colleagues have mentioned the importance of addressing the goals that the college athletes have set out. i was reading an editorial that came out that said the college sports establishment has brought this trouble on itself by not

moving to address players' legitimate grievances. obviously the regional director found some differences between what northwestern is doing and what you have described in your experience and mr. muir and judge starr. i wanted to ask just a quick question. i know mr. eilers, you van mba from kellogg school but you report here representing northwestern. mr. livingston, do you happen to represent northwestern? >> i do not. >> i was just curious about that. we've heard different experiences here and different facts about your colleges, like mr. muir, what stanford is doing. but what we're talking about is a decision that's specific to northwestern, and one of the things that the regional director found was that the scholarship players are identified and recruited in the first instance because of their football prowess and not because of their academic achievement in

high school. is that similar? mr. muir, you're shaking your head. is that different from your experience at stanford? >> that is definitely different. when i think about what our coaches are doing in identifying young people to potentially come to stanford, as i said earlier, the first process they have to go through is making sure they can pass admissions and make sure that they can enter school just look the general student. so we are weeding out individuals because if they don't have the academic record, doesn't matter what their athletic accomplishments are. if they aren't able to in order to meet the needs of ensuring that they'll get an education. that's not going to happen. >> i was trying to figure out from reading part of the regional director's opinion. what happens if a class that a player, a scholarship player wants to take because of his major or i should say his or her major because maybe this could be expanded to women's sports as well. what happens if that class conflicts with practice?

what does the college do? >> when i attended practice when i see our student athletes practice, getting ready for competition. there's many times i'll see football student athletes, specifically, walk off the field because they are attending a lab or a class. and that comes first. >> and they aren't penalized for that? they are permitted -- >> those are kids who will play on saturday as well. >> was that your experience as well? >> yeah, it was. there are sacrifices made. i took organic chemistry one summer between my sophomore and junior year because of that fact. and trying to take the labs. i would only submit one additional item which is i think what stanford has done is incredible in football and what they do on the academic front, accomplishing both. there was a brief moment in time before we ran into unfortunate game against alabama in the national championship, i was most proud of notre dame having the highest graduation rate for the football players as well as

briefly being ranked number one in the country. so you can do both. >> the regional director, i believe, found that northwestern has 97% graduation rate for its players. which seems to be pretty high. i wanted to ask also about, what happens during the recruitment process because i mentioned what the finding was about northwestern, that they were recruited because of their football prowess. what happens during that recruitment process? how are the prospect ive athlets made aware of all of the students available to them? how do they decide during that consideration process? who informs them about and whether they will lose their scholarship if they don't stay on the team? mr. muir? maybe judge starr you can respond to that as well. >> want to go first? >> in terms of the recruitment process, i have personally seen what that process looks like.

and it includes a very thorough introduction to here's the academic support. they will meet people from the academic support staff. they will see, and we try to determine, is there a diagnostic testing done by the university but those tried in terms any of learning disability. so there is a very holistic introduction to the university as a whole, including the academic sooud. usually the parents or parent or loved one is there with the prospective student athlete. >> my time is expired. i yield back. >> i thank the chairman and the gentlemen for your testimony today. i think from what i heard, judge starr kind of, as he would being a former judge, really clarified the issue. and that is, are we going to use the nlra as a vehicle for the improvements that you have all talked about today? i suspect, no.

i can't imagine the authors of the law or the intent of congress was to cover this situation. but let's poke around with it and explore a little bit. mr. livingston if the students were to strike or if the athletics department or university were to lock the players out, like you'd have at a steel mill, let's say, during the collective bargaining process. would the students be able to attend class? >> the only experience we really have is in professional sports, where the entire league, that typically goes an strike oir is locked out. >> that's professional sports. >> in college because we don't have it -- >> because in college you have classes and teachers and whatnot. >> would they have to stay in their dorms or vacate those? those are unanswered questions. >> right. certainly unanswered by the law or regulations or anything else. mr. muir, northwestern is in the big ten conference, as you know,

along with two schools in indiana, one being pursdue in m district. let's say northwestern student athletes were to unionize and proceed to strike or be locked out. how would that affect the rest of the conference? using your knowledge and experience. >> not being at northwestern, i don't know if it's appropriate for me to jump on that, but -- >> i said using your experience and knowledge, what do you think would happen? >> it would be difficult to continue to schedule and continue to have competition. >> if stanford were in a similar situation, what would be the effects? >> if that was the case, we're going down the path, stanford might not opt to continue to compete at the level we're coordinately competing at. >> to the dr. roe's point or comment he made earlier. my district also has st. joseph's college, which i'm a proud to be a board member of. it's a division 2 school, which if i understand right, you can

share scholarships at that level, between students, and there's limited funds. again, experience looking into your crystal ball, what would be the effect of division 2 students with regard to this? >> again, i'm not a legal expert but if the students at division 2 wanted to unionize as well, i think that would dramatically affect whether institutions can continue to have these offerings which is part of the fabric of higher education. >> these questions and your answers continue to bring clarity that i don't think this law was even intended for this kind of situation. >> may i add something? we're talking about scholarships as though there's a finite limit. rnd the national labor relation, the union would be able to bargain about it. half scholarships versus full scholarships it's all subject to bargaining rnd the nlra.

>> thank you. judge starr coming to you, we often talk about on this committee and in business across the nation and in union halls about the cost of unionization. the cost of bargaining, cost of dues, et cetera, whether or not a union member should have to pay dues voluntarily or not have a choice in that. what do you think in your experience would be the cost of unionization for the employer and employees. can you estimate employer/employee costs of student athletes unionized at baylor, for example? >> we've not punched through the numbers to come up with a reasonable estimate. the whole idea of collective bargaining is, in fact, to increase the whole reservoir of duly agreed upon commitments by the employer. so i think part of the question is, what can we do outside the collective bargaining which has never been contemplated before

that improves student welfare. that's the ultimate question that you've rightly focused an. the yenization process is raising a whole host of questions we can't answer today but we know costs will go up, including issues with respect to how is that student going to be treated as an employee in terms of taxation? medicare and the like. >> that's a segue into my last ye f question for you, judge starr. considering the world is a jury. watching today, people may get the impression that the acknowledgment that improvements need to be made san acknowledgment that someone was caught or this just started as a reaction to this recent decision. can you give us evidence otherwise via your testimony. >> i'm sorry, judge. the gentleman's time has expired. >> may he respond? >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. schwarz in many cases, the scholarship requires you to play. in most cases? >> my understanding is until 2011, the ncaa mandated that the scholarship could only be for one year whether schools wanted to give one or not if you stop playing during the course of that year, you were allowed to continue for that year, after which the scholarship would not be renewed. the current deal -- >> some colleges you get a scholarship and you can continue with the scholarship whether you play or not, isn't that right? a needs based scholarship. >> if you choose not to play football the schools have the decision to terminate the aid even on a four-year deal at the end of that year. >> you indicate the number of hours that had to be committed. san athlete required to comply with that schedule? >> you know, in the nlrl hearing the facts that came out that weren't controverted.

it's a 40, 50, 60-hour a week job during the season and about half that off season. >> can a student ever be before the ruling, could a student ever be an employee of the college, like if they worked at the library or something like that? >> students are employees at universities all the time. the editor in chief makes about $45,000 at the stanford daily. >> in that case is the student's -- is the status of a student, does that affect his status as an employee? >> no, students, employees are mutually exclusive concepts. >> and the part-time job could be an essential part of the financial aid package. you get a certain amount of scholarship, a certain loan and we'll make sure you get a part-time job at the library. that could be an essential -- >> my roommate in college did just that. >> and it's unlikely if you quit your job at the library you'd lose the rest of your scholarship. that would be a little unheard

of, wouldn't it? >> i think that's right. there's lots of ways that students outside of sports can be compensated. at stanford there was a class that required students to sell an app on facebook and to commercialize it was part of the requirements of the class and they got credit for doing that rather than being -- losing. >> is it possible that some student athletes would qualify as employees under this ruling and others not qualify? >> my understanding is the ruling applies only to fbs football athletes who receive a scholarship. >> now, what would the difference be for those -- if you have a scholarship and just put a couple hours a week in swimming or wrestling or some other sport that doesn't have the time commitment is it possible you'd be a student athlete and not an employee? >> well, i object to the term student athlete. it's a term of our design to

basically dodge legal agreements. you say college athlete, i think college athlights go to college and they play sports. >> and it's possible that some would qualify as employees and some would not. >> i think that's right. >> and if a college wanted to avoid the union problem, they could treat them like college students and not like employees. is that right? >> i am not sure if i am fully understanding, but -- >> if you get a scholarship for the chess club or something, or band and are not required to put in those kind of hours you'd be, what did you -- a college athlete. >> that's right. the reverse is true. the chess team has more rights because the chess team could say, i want a college scholarship that covers more than just the athletic scholarship. they have the right in the market to bargain but football athletes don't. >> it's possible under this rule something would qualify as employees and others would not?

>> i think that's correct. >> mr. eilers, you indicated the issues of the right to scholarship, medical treatment, the right to minimize brain trauma and other situations like that. a union could engage these issues. if it's not the union, who would be in a position in a bargaining position to engage these issues and have the resources actually to do the research and make a presentation on behalf of the athletes? >> mr. scott, as i said in my testimony, i don't have a solution. to me it should be the ncaa and member institutions. and it's clear and just to clarify what i think are some misconceptions, schools operate differently. at notre dame, there is a specific instance of a scholarship athlete, played football, decided after his sophomore year not to play football anymore. we honored his scholarship, he

graduated with a degree in four years from the university of notre dame. there may be other schools that operate differently. and our walk-ons were treated just like the scholarship athletes. maybe at the university of -- at ohio state, they weren't. so there needs to be an elevation across all, i think, collegiate sports to make sure that we are delivering for the student. >> gentleman's time has expired. mrs. brooks. >> thank you and thank you all for your testimony today. it's so very important. i'm the daughter of a high school football coach and the mother of a d1 soccer graduate from xavier university who suffered a serious concussion in high school in the last game of her high school career, and after wonderful medical treatment and proper healing, she went on to play four years of d1 soccer. now many parents and people who

are helping these athletes get scholarships, which they all work so very hard in their lives to achieve those scholarships, parents advocate for these young people. the students advocate. the student athlete advisory committee of the ncaa advocates. the, i would assume, the president of the universities and the representatives of each of the conferences that represent the ncaa on their board are advocates for these athletes. and i would submit that there are many avenues to rectify the problems, and there are continued problems for college athletes. but these athletes make these choices as to which schools to attend. one thing we haven't talked about enough is the role of the coaches in all of this process. and the coaches who are employees of the university, who report to the athletic directors, who report to the

college president who report to the board of trustees, what mechanisms are there in your universities for the students to voice their concerns with the coaches and the coaches to voice their concerns to the administration? i'll start with you, judge starr. >> yes, we do have at baylor and it's frequently the case at most institutions there's a student athletic council. so these are student athletes themselves who come together. they are elected by their fellow student athletes. and so they have direct access, not simply to their coaches but to the athletic director. they can also communicate with someone we haven't talked about and that's the faculty athletic representative who is to bring an academic perspective to bear in terms of the entire athletic program, including reviewing specific cases. you are absolutely right. there are numerous avenues for voices to be heard. the ncaa, the final thing i'd say is the ncaa itself, however, believes that in its governance historically, it has not done

well in terms of assuring the student athlete voice. so there are reforms under way that i think will be adopted that will in fact, better ensure that student athletes are there in the inner councils of the ncaa. >> thank you, mr. muir. >> we have a number of opportunities to hear from our student athletes. the student athlete council, the cardinal council, i just met with at my home two weeks ago. it's a chance to check in and hear their issues and concerns and how are we doing. it's really important. we survey all of our student athletes after every season and provide feedback. they can do it anonymously. and we get information on just how their experience is going. also, the coaches have an open door policy. we look for that when we select our coaches and the proper leadership. we think we have one of the largest leadership development programs on our campus. that's another opportunity for student athletes to engage. we have administrators, counselors, tutors on the united front to make sure their

experience is the best it possibly can be and an avenue for our student athletes to engage. >> is it fair to say that your coaches in part are judged in and their success is judged in part on though graduation rates of their athletes? >> we look at a number of things. the graduation rates and what they are doing in the classroom and to make sure they are solid citizens and a part of the university fabric, which is what we've talked about earlier. >> there's always a tension when student athletes have to leave and may miss classes or tests or labs and so forth. but as judge starr indicated, there are faculty representatives and there has to be that relationship with the faculty and the athletic department in order to ensure those students take the tests, that they get the proper reinforcement and, in addition, the study halls. i know my daughter, there were numerous study tables that required of all student athletes in order, t to achieve certain

gpas. they must achieve a certain gpa to get out of those study halls. are you familiar with that at notre dame? >> it wasn't proactive like it was when i was there. if you didn't perform well you got there. today they default to everybody starts with study hall. and the eonly other thing i'd comment. there are institutions that take academics and athletics seriously and their coaches do have -- do have provisions in their contract if they don't graduate their student athletes, there are negative implications to their salary and to their career. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> mr. tierny. >> thank the witnesses today. i'm impressed with the concern and the way you sort of agree with the concerns or goals of it but you have a concern about unionization. i want to point out, these concerns existed for decades. so i wish that you had an idea

you could -- what you would do if you wouldn't unionize. these are not new problems, are they? >> not at all. the issue of cost of attendance attendance sti attendance stiepeneds has been around since 1973 win by collective vote the ncaa took them away. >> i agree there are a lot of advocates out there. it hasn't been very effective for you. advocating all the time and the problem exists. >> it's a one-sided discussion. >> so it was also the student, the college athlete has choices. what would you say to that? >> you know, i have been

advocating for a much more free market opportunity. i think choice would be great. congressman brooks mentioned that choices have choice. what they don't have a choice about is the full package they receive because the schools fix the price what they offer. they offer the same thing. it limits choice. the ncaa, you know, $3.2 billion. but they can't address five basic issues except to say that it's coming soon. >> yeah. if i just -- can i add one thing. the idea it's a money-losing industry, you know, is incredible. if you look at money-losing industry. you wouldn't see rising pay for employees. you wouldn't see firms flocking to enter the industry. 19 new schools entered since '96. none have left. you wouldn't see bonuses for 10-1 for sports results instead of academic results. the money is in the system. it's just that it's being denied to the primary generators. >> you made another point i want to talk about it a little bit. you said money is being funneled football coaches instead of the athlete. some coaches get paid $7 million. when the money is going to coaches in lieu of financial aid to the athletes. it effectively puts a cap on that and deprives female athletes.

>> that's right. title ix doesn't apply to coaching pay. that's why males can make so much more than female coaches. it applies to financial aid to students. if the aid is capped, it is now. even the ncaa wishes it were higher. the lifting of the cap on the male athletes would effectively result in matching female funds. a cap on men results in a cap on women. >> if you allow me, undercover principles of title ix the amount of financial aid must be in the same proportion as the sports participation rate of male and females. >> yes. >> but when i look at the data from department of education website it shows that baylor spends 56 cents on male citizenships but only 44 cents -- scholarships out of every dollar.

but it is suggested under title ix they should give 42 cents to men and 58 cents to women. there is a disparage of just 1 percentage point. you have some serious explaining to do. i want to give you the opportunity to explain us to the disparity between the scholarship dollars this go to men versus women at baylor and participation rates of men and women. well that is a very fluid process. we have to come forward with explanations as to why there may be a temporary disparity. we recently created two new women's sports with scholarships in toward address the disparity. we have, for example, created equestrian with a number of scholarships for women. we created acrobatics and tumbling. >> so you are saying this is a

temporary issue, not year to year. do you know that for a fact or are you just guessing? >> i don't know of that specific disparity. that is information to me. what i do know is that athletic department, the athletic department does have to focus on this with our title ix compliance officer. we have a title ix compliance officer who reviews these kinds of issues to determine whether there -- >> i'm just disturbed that the ncaa's answer to all of these issues, can which most people agree aught to be addressed, is wait until the next decade or two and we might get around to. and title ix's answer is, we will work on it. >> i agree. i have the same frustration. that's why i'm here today. i would like to see this implemented and the one thing i didn't want to throw on the table when i was a student athlete at notre dame, trying to prepare to play against michigan, prepare for class, i didn't see this coming up about

threatening to strike. or getting friday night or saturday morning football game and not leave the locker room because demands weren't being met. i don't think the student athlete needs the incremental burden. but we need to get there. >> apparently they need something to get the conversation here with some sincerity. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. wahlberg? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank to the panel for being here. i didn't participate in a revenue sport. i was in an olympic sport. but wrestling in high school and college was the best training that i had. i did it out of the joy of the sport. i did it by choice. suffered four shoulder surgeries as a result of that in later years of my life. but i look back and i would do it all over again. i spreeappreciate also the aspe that there has to be care taken

for our athletes and i respect what you said about your concerns on that. mr. muir, in your testimony, you state stanford has taken stepts to cover medical cost for injuries, promote player safety and research prevention and effectets of concussions. can you elaborate more on those steps? and are they consistent with ncaa rules? >> they are. we are doing concussion study on football student athletes, soccer student athletes. what they have told me is the research will be lengthy. we can't today say here is how we prevent that from happening but certainly they are observing that and they have medical mouth piece they put in each of the student athletes to track where blows come from. and they are leading that

research in that rooegard. and the welfare of our student athletes is something we hold near and dear us to. it is important to enhance those as we move forward with our student athletes competing at this level. >> are they made aware of opportunities considerations, programs -- >> they are testing -- they are the ones wearing those mouth pieces. they are getting educated on the risks involved and certainly what the research we are try doing. and there is obviously great discussion about what the future hold. so that's something he this engage in. i think has been worthwhile to have this led leadership role. >> long those lines you say there are steps taken for student athletes, what are those steps? >> athletes that weren't able to finish their senior year in

competition, we are honoring those scholarships. we look forward to them contributing once they are healthy. we have other athletes hurt while in the course of play and we still honor the scholarships at the end of the day. first and foremost we are here to make sure they get their degree and we will do everything in our power to make shower that happens regardless if they continue to play or not. >> what about baylor? >> same policy. we care for our student athletes and football players. if they are injured, the scholarship continues. and we have the moral obligation. an injury sustained in football even post graduation. >> notre dame, as far as you know? [ inaudible ] . >> as far as i know, notre dame is consistent with other testimony. >> mr. muir, i would like you to

talk about it as well. we have talked a little bit about the stippen issue? what is your issue as an athletic director? major private university? >> the major issue is that each institution is trying to pay up to the of attendance. that's the issue out there. for each institution, that attendance or personal cost is different. trying to figure out their exact number where we can at least try to be equitable. the other thing that mr. schwartz mentioned as well, is the resources that would be necessary to provide that. not all schools are able to meet that cost of attendance, and it's a concern for them. or they'll have to make other decisions, and so that is a difficult one, and that's why we spent so many years trying to figure that out. i do feel, because of the discussion in the dialogue, that we're closer. we realize we need to enhance that overall experience for the student athletes, but it is different from school to school since there are so few that are

truly making revenue that they're able to far exceed their expenses with revenue. it makes it hard, it makes it difficult. so i do think we're making progress but it's going to take a little more time. >> mr. eilers? >> anecdotally, i would just tell you, my parents, i was fortunate, were able to give me out of pocket expense money when i was on scholarship at notre dame. my little brother was there, two years younger than me, chris zorich, became a college all american and played with my last year at the chicago bears. he came from a single-parent family, went to a chicago voc tech high school, had no pocket money. his mom couldn't afford it. it came down to people, his teammates, his mentors to make sure he could go out to dinner with us, do laundry, et cetera, off campus if need be, and i just think that's wrong. i had my first wrestling win at

chicago votech. >> your time is expired. mr. burn? >> i am the chancellor for post-secondary education at the state of alabama. mr. eilers, don't hold that against me. i'm also a former labor lawyer who represented numerous clients in front of the national labor relations board on a number of occasions. so this issue fascinates me because i've dealt with it both ways. our two-year colleges, which is what post-secondary department of education at university of alabama deals with, does have athletic programs. we add golfer in my district named bubba watson. bubba went on to georgia but he started at our two-year college. we're proud of bubba, and we're proud of our athletes. a vast majority will never do as

well as bubba has, but a lot of them we hope will get a good education. you know when we're dealing with students in that environment, they bring their life issues with them. they may be students and they may be athletes, but they're also young people and they have life issues, and we have coaches and counselors that deal with them on stuff that happens on the field and stuff that happens off the field. you can't take them apart. they just come together like that. and i guess what bothers me about this whole issue -- and i want to share the concerns i've heard about the ncaa, by the way. i see that as a separate issue. i believe we're using the wrong tool to get at those ncaa issues. what concerns me is that if students organize and we have to deal with a union representative instead of the student, what does that do to the obligation, the responsibility, i know y'all feel it from your institutions, to deal with these student athletes with their life issues and the stuff that's not

directly involved with whatever they're doing on the field? what does that do to that? >> i think it would be very disruptive, you're absolutely right, congressman, that the relationship is a very individual relationship. and it's not just the coach and the coaching staff. it's that entire battery of support services, it's that tutor, but it's also the faculty member. it's the representative to the student council. at baylor we have a very vibrant chaplaincy program, so there's the spiritual dimension as well. so trying to channel everything into, at the age of 18 to 22, a set of labor law issues with wages and terms and conditions and so forth, seems to be very artificial and arbitrary and not serving the ultimate interests of the individual student athlete. >> mr. muir, do you have a vantage point on that? >> i do. i just think about the relationships that we build with

young people, and it starts, obviously, prior to coming to college. we start early now. it's becoming sophomore year, junior year of high school, obviously when they get to be seniors. that carries through not only the four years or five years they're on campus, but we want them to have a relationship with us once they graduate and have a degree. that relationship is so important to us, and yes, we do have students who have other issues that need to be dealt with and how do they cope and manage, but they feel open, and for the majority of them, that they're able to come to someone here in the university setting, whether it be a faculty member, a coach, an administrator, and that's the beauty of the college environment, and i think that's really important for us to keep in mind as we move forward. certainly, as we noted, there are many issues that need to be addressed, and i think we're going to work our way to getting those done. it's always evolving. >> i would ask this question to legal counsel here. have you heard the vantage point of people who are dealing with these student athletes on things that go far beyond what happens

in their actual athletic work, if you want to call it work, in this environment, is the nlra the right tool to deal with the issues that people seem to have with the ncaa, et cetera? let me just say this. ncaa doesn't have anything to do with two-year colleges. we start creating a bigger definition of employee, it's going to affect a whole lot of people, not just people who are governed by the ncaa. so is the nlra the right tool to do this? >> mr. byrne, that's a great question and one of the reasons why i don't think it applies. under the nra, all employees have certain rights, and the policies that judge starr and others have talked about, based on recent nlrb decisions, they would clearly violate them. the coach requires his players to be a facebook friend. the schools monitor facebook postings, they prohibit

interviews. recent board cases made it clear they say that violates the right of any employee whether they're in a union or not. so at all 17 schools, the framework we're talking about likely already violates the nlra. it's just not the appropriate tool. >> the gentleman's time has expired. on my agenda here, it says we're to do closing remarks. i'm going to yield to mr. miller for his closing remarks. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think this is a very important hearing. you know, america is in the throes of celebrating on a daily basis socially and economically every way possible entrepreneurs and those who take risks. the list of grievances that these players presented is a list of grievances that players

could have presented five years ago and ten years ago across the college community, but they haven't been addressed. these players are put in a position of being on the edge all the time, scholarship, no scholarship, play, don't play, classes, no classes all of the time. that's a very interesting place to keep your employees that you care so much about. i think these players might play better if they had some more certainty in their life. but the ncaa doesn't let you do that as a university. we have some remarkable examples of university programs. you know you're not typical across the board of high stakes football in this country. and we know the athletes are not typical. and the fact is, you're graduating people, but we also have clusters of athletes that go to certain classrooms for certain reasons that may not apply toward their graduation, so they're short but they stay eligible by taking the classes. i'm not holding you responsible, but we know this landscape.

that's why the night commission was set up to look at the landscape. no easy critics out of the industry. but the fact of the matter is that this landscape has changed dramatically. i've been in congress long enough to know that when i've seen really tough issues on the academic side where they thought congress might get involved in accreditation or what have you, very often you don't meet the college president, you meet the college coach. and we know that the education journal, sports journal shows are constantly debating this question who is the most powerful person on campus, the president or the coach? we all hell can be paid for the mishandling or hiring or firing of a coach. these concerns that these young men were willing to take a risk on exist on every campus.

whether or not you have the security of a scholarship, for how long. whether or not you're going to have health insurance. what's going to happen with injuries if you lose your scholarship? we've been over this and over this and over this. i think i held the first concussion hearings. no, this is not proper for public discussion. this is a sport, this is volunteers, people play until they started to see the extent of the damage done. i work with many nfl coaches and many nfl players. we couldn't get to first base. i had coaches come and tell me the documents are here. we know what's taken place here. well, finally the players association went to court and we know the rest is history. and that's just the beginning. but the fact of the matter is a determination was made that it was better to run the

organization in the manner in which the owners wanted to run it than to deal with these issues. and i grant you, it can change the game. it's already changed the viewership. it's changed the way tv portrays it. they don't rerun those big hits because the audience has a bigger reaction today when they see that hit. they know that's a damaging hit. they know there are consequences to that. before that was highlights. but highlights are now a liability. so we can have all the parade here of what can happen if there's unionization. why don't we think what can happen if we took care of the problems of these student athletes and if the university got back in control of this program and not the nc2a, not the conference? i understand there's got to be rules and regulations. but we see arbitrary decisions made all the time by the ncaa. i remember talking to sports journalists about the issue. why are students who had nothing to do with the infraction losing

rights to the playoff game? if you think you're going to the nba or the nfl and you can't get into the playoffs where everybody is focused on your performance, that's a huge punishment. to what, they're up holding some morality of their vision of football and they're going to show they're really tough on this school? they were tough on a bunch of students who weren't there when the infraction took place. so i think there is a lot to think about on the campuses. we spend a lot of time on this committee about higher ed and the approaches we take. and i think that you, you're here because you're leaders in this field, you're not immune from this. this is a stanford daily that i asked to be put in. the list of easy classes that nobody knew existed, everybody said didn't happen, but the professor said, it upped my attendance, i'm glad it was on there. and they said, no, they major in eligibility. i guess the senate is going to

hear from miss william on north carolina? there you are. i think senators are going to hear this, so you can rail against the unionization. like the nfl, like the nba, you better address the problem. this is college sports, not ncaa, it's college sports. and i appreciate -- i stood on the sidelines. i was so proud there. happened to be with a big donor of usc and notre dame in los angeles and south bend. most exciting moment of my life. i never knew it could be that noisy. i played a lot of football but i didn't play at that level. so we know the influences here. we know the influences here. they're student athletes. i don't think you treat the other students like this on campus. i think somebody better get and take control of this situation again.

and in most of the journals i read, the president is losing in this war against the coaches for the say in the standards on campus. mrs. schwartz is right. this is like that cab in california. it's always coming but it never arrives. the ncaa just can't make these decisions so we get these arbitrary actions against institutions and against the students, and in some cases, against a coach now and then. there is a lot to think about here. i've been here 40 years. i've watched a lot of people deny the problems and go after the symptom, which in this case is a decision to join the union. a rational decision by these young people. there was no other outlet for them. no other outlet as there wasn't for the people who preceded them. so i wouldn't be so concerned about whether or not they're going to -- they're not going to go out on the field on saturday. that's not the makeup of these young men.