    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         THE ELITE UNIVERSITIES CARTEL:
                      A HISTORY OF ANTICOMPETITIVE COLLUSION
                      INFLATING THE COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,
                        REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST

                             COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-23

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-624                      WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
    BRANDON GILL, Texas
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
                                     ------

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,
                        REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST

                       SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                      Member
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
    HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas                ZOE LOFGREN, California
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
                                             Georgia

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                      JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 4, 2025

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    The Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
      Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the
      State of Wisconsin.............................................     1
    The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
      on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
      from the State of New York.....................................     3
    The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Ohio.........................................     5
    The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     5

                                   WITNESSES

    Dr. Preston Cooper, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
      Oral Testimony.................................................     9
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    11
    Scott Martin, Partner, Hausfeld LLP
      Oral Testimony.................................................    22
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    24
    Alex Shieh, Opinion Writer, The Boston Globe; Publisher, The
      Brown Spectator; Creator, Trialhouse.com, Brown University
      Oral Testimony.................................................    27
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    29
    Julie Margetta Morgan, President, The Century Foundation
      Oral Testimony.................................................    35
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    37

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the
      Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust are
      listed below...................................................    67

    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking
      Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State,
      Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of New York,
      for the record
        An article entitled, ``China Really Wants to Attract Talented
            Scientists. Trump Just Helped,'' Jun. 4, 2025, The New
            York Times
        An article entitled, ``The House Reconciliation Bill Makes
            College Less Affordable--All to Pay for Tax Cuts for
            Millionaires and Billionaires,'' Apr. 29, 2025, New
            America
        An article from entitled, ``The number of 18-year-olds is
            about to drop sharply, packing a wallop for colleges--and
            the economy,'' Jan. 8, 2025, The Hechinger Report
        An article entitled, ``Declining Enrollment is Leading to
            School Closures. How Can Districts Limit the Harm to
            Their Most Vulnerable Students?'' Oct. 5, 2023,
            Bellwether
        An article entitled, ``Ivy League School's Financial Aid,''
            The Ivy Coach Daily
        An article entitled, ``Who's at Fault for Student-Loan
            Defaults?'' May 13, 2019, Chicago Booth Review
    An article entitled, ``Harvard Has Trained So Many Chinese
      Communist Officials, They Call It Their `Party School,' '' Jun.
      1, 2025, The Wall Street Journal, submitted by the Honorable
      Michael Baumgartner, Member of the Subcommittee on the
      Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the
      State of Washington, for the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
      for the record
        A press release entitled, ``Trump University is an Absolute
            Scam. Get the Facts About Pending Litigation,'' Mar. 4,
            2016, Rubio Campaign
        An article entitled, ``Congressional Republicans' Proposed
            Budget Reconciliation Bill Imperils 4.4 Million Pell
            Grant Recipients,'' May 13, 2025, Center for American
            Progress
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Becca Balint, of the
      Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform,
      and Antitrust from the State of Vermont, for the record
        An article entitled, ``Judge finalizes $25 million settlement
            for `victims of Donald Trump's fraudulent university,' ''
            Apr. 9, 2018, ABC News
        An article entitled, ``Trump University settlement finalized
            by judge at $25 million,'' Apr. 10, 2018, USA Today
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of
      the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
      Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Wisconsin, for the
      record
        An Press Blog entitled, ``Ivy League Tuition and Fees for
            2024-2025,'' Ivy Coach Daily
        An Press Blog entitled, ``Ivy Coach: The Curator of Ivy
            League Admissions Statistics Since the Beginning of Time.
            Ok, maybe not since dinosaurs.'' Ivy Coach
        A article entitled, ``Students overpaid elite colleges $685
            million, `price-xing' suit says,'' Washington Post, Dec.
            17, 2024
        A press release entitled, ``Plaintiffs in Elite University
            Price-Fixing Case Settle with Caltech and John Hopkins,''
            Berger Montague, Jan. 27, 2025
        The Plaintiffs' Memorandum, Andrew Corzo, Sia Henry,
            Alexander Leo-Guerra, Michael Maerlender, Brandon
            Piyevsky, Benjamin Shumate, Brittany Tatiana Weaver, and
            Cameron Williams v. Brown University, California
            Institute of Technology, University of Chicago, the
            Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York,
            Cornell University, Trustees of Dartmouth College, Duke
            University, Emory University, Georgetown University, the
            Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts Institute of
            Technology, Northwestern University, University of Notre
            Dame Du Lac, the Trustees of the University of
            Pennsylvania, William Marsh Rice University, Vanderbilt
            University, and Yale University, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00125,
            Dec. 29, 2024
        A press release entitled, ``Consent Decree Settles Charge of
            Conspiracy to Restrain Price Competition on Financial Aid
            Against Major Universities,'' May 22, 1991, The
            Department of Justice
        An article entitled, ``How to Crush the Ivy League Cartel,''
            Dec. 14, 2023, BIG Newsletter
        The Exhibit 18, Henry v. Brown University, Case: 1:22-cv-
            00125, Document 753-18, Dec. 16, 2024
    Materials submitted by the Honorable J. Luis Correa, Member of
      the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
      Reform, and Antitrust from the State of California, for the
      record
        An article entitled, ``Trump is crushing America's AI
            leadership. We still have time to fix it.'' Apr. 23,
            2025, Orange County Register
        An article entitled, ``JD Vance Wanted to `Aggressively
            Attack' American Universities. His Wish Has Been Trump's
            Command,'' Jun. 3, 2025, The New York Times
        A chart entitled, ``Costs of Federally Sponsored Research,''
            Dec. 11, 2024, Association of American Universities
        An graphic entitled, ``Driving the Innovation Economy:
            Academic Technology Transfer in Numbers,'' AUTM
        A graphic entitled, ``Benefiting Society and the Economy:
            Academic Technology Transfer for 2023,'' AUTM
        An article entitled, ``Federal R&D Cuts Would Be Another
            (Massive) Unforced Policy Error,'' Apr. 18, 2025,
            American Enterprise Institute
        An article entitled, ``America's R&D Rethink Threatens Its
            Innovation Supremacy,'' Apr. 1, 2025, American Enterprise
        An article entitled, ``New American Fortune 500 in 2024,''
            Sept. 9, 2024, American Immigration Council
        An article entitled, ``U.S. Scientists Warn That Trump's Cuts
            Will Set Off a Brain Drain,'' Jun. 3, 2025, The New York
            Times
        An article entitled, ``These Are the U.S. Universities Most
            Dependent on International Students,'' May 23, 2025, The
            New York Times
        An article entitled, ``Losing International Students Could
            Devastate Many Colleges,'' Apr. 19, 2025, The New York
            Times

                                    APPENDIX

    A report entitled, ``Economic Contributions of University/
      Nonprofit Inventions in the United States: 1996-2020,'' Jun.
      14, 2022, AUTM, submitted by the Honorable J. Luis Correa,
      Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State,
      Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of California,
      for the record

                         THE ELITE UNIVERSITIES CARTEL:
                          A HISTORY OF ANTICOMPETITIVE
                COLLUSION INFLATING THE COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 4, 2025

                            House of Representatives

                   Subcommittee on the Administrative State,

                        Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
    2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Scott Fitzgerald
    [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Fitzgerald, Jordan, Issa,
    Cline, Gooden, Hageman, Harris, Baumgartner, Nadler, Raskin,
    Correa, Balint, Garcia, and Johnson.
        Also present: Representative Nehls.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection, the Chair is authorized
    to declare a recess at any time.
        I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on collusion
    in higher education.
        Without objection, I ask unanimous consent for Mr. Nehls to
    be permitted to participate in this hearing, question the
    witnesses if a Member yields him time for that purpose, of
    which I will yield to him five minutes.
        I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
        According to the National Center for Education Statistics,
    U.S. colleges and universities are $700 billion, a $700 billion
    industry. The Harvard endowment alone, which stood North of 50
    million as of 2023, is larger than the GDP of 120 Nations. Six
    of the eight Ivy League schools have endowments exceeding $10
    billion.
        Ivy League schools should be competing to offer the best
    products at the best possible price. Instead, they collude to
    raise prices and spend their inflated cartel earnings on
    administrative bloat.
        According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while products
    like cars, clothing, and TVs have become more affordable as
    businesses reduce costs to attract buyers, the cost of college
    tuition and textbooks has risen by more than 180 percent and,
    respectively, continues to go higher. Today, the cost to attend
    an Ivy League school can exceed $100,000 per school year.
        Ever since the Ivy League was established in the 1950s,
    these schools have been focused on exclusivity, maximizing
    profits, and artificially inflated prestige rather than
    expanding access to education and serving students.
        In 1950, Harvard charged $600 a year for tuition. Today
    that number is nearly $60,000. Not only has tuition
    skyrocketed, but these schools are also deliberately keeping
    class sizes small to maintain exclusivity and inflate their
    perceived prestige. Between 1978-2023, while the U.S.
    population grew by just 50 percent, and the number of
    applicants increased by 450 percent, Harvard reduced its class
    sizes by 258 seats.
        Across all Ivy League schools demand has steadily
    increased, yet admissions remain flat. As you can see from the
    graph displayed, although each Ivy League school on average
    receives more than 50,000 applications, it accepts less than
    2,000 students per year.
        These price increases and shrinking class sizes are not
    coincidental. Ivy League schools have a history of coordinating
    pricing practices to avoid competing on costs. In 1958, MIT and
    the eight Ivy League schools formed what is widely known as the
    ``Ivy Overlap Group,'' a cartel to fix prices. These schools
    agreed to use a shared formula for calculating financial aid,
    ensuring students admitted to multiple schools would pay the
    same price no matter where they went.
        In 1989, the Department of Justice began investigating
    these practices and, ultimately, filed an antitrust lawsuit. By
    1993, all nine schools had settled.
        In response, Congress adopted Section 568 of the Improving
    America's Schools Act of 1994, granting colleges an antitrust
    exemption provided they did not consider a student's ability to
    pay while making admissions decisions.
        In 1999, elite schools formed a new cartel, the 568
    Presidents' Working Group. The goal was the same: To create a
    shared financial aid formula and not compete for students based
    on price.
        Even with a legal exemption, these elite schools still
    chose profit and prestige over access and fairness. In 2022,
    former students sued many of the Ivy League schools for
    colluding with financial aid formulas that favored wealthy
    applicants.
        In one internal document uncovered through discovery a
    college administrator complained about not being able to find
    enough qualified students with well-off parents to pay the high
    sticker prices. She said, ``Sure hope the wealthy next year
    raise a few more smart kids.''
        Ivy League schools can maximize the price paid by each
    student using detailed financial data collected through the
    College Scholarship Services Profile, or the CSS Profile. It is
    a comprehensive financial aid form that most colleges do not
    require.
        The CSS Profile gives these schools access to sensitive
    information, including family home ownership, savings,
    retirement accounts, and more. With that information, they can
    determine how much a prospective student's family can
    apparently afford to pay and then charge them that amount.
        Despite valuing their degrees at nearly $400,000, having
    multibillion dollar endowments, and receiving billions more in
    taxpayer funding, these schools don't prioritize accessibility
    or quality of education, they prioritize profit and prestige.
        Even though the Ivy League schools no longer have an
    antitrust exemption to coordinate on pricing, tuition continues
    to skyrocket. By setting the industry standard for tuition, the
    Ivy League creates an umbrella effect that allows other
    colleges to charge more than they could in a competitive
    market.
        Today we are starting an overdue conversation about how the
    Ivy League's anticompetitive practices may harm students,
    taxpayers, and, ultimately, our country's future.
        I want to thank the witnesses again for appearing before us
    today. I look forward to your input.
        I will now recognize the Ranking Member Mr. Nadler for his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, before I start my opening statement
    let me mention a personal stake in this.
        I am the first member of my family to go to college. We
    didn't have much money. My father worked at a gas station. I
    was offered full scholarships by two Ivy League colleges: Yale
    and Columbia. I chose Columbia. I never had to pay a cent.
        Mr. Chair, this hearing, like so much else that we have
    done in this Committee under Republican control, takes a
    serious issue and uses it as little more than an excuse to
    launch a decidedly unserious so-called investigation.
        Let's be clear, the cost of tuition at many colleges and
    universities, not just Ivy League institutions, is too high and
    is unaf-
    fordable for too many families. The same Republicans who today
    claim to be concerned about the ability of students and their
    families to afford college tuition proudly cast their votes two
    weeks ago for a Budget Reconciliation Bill that would take
    direct aim at student loan programs and other vital student
    aid.
        If they really cared about consumer prices, they would not
    undermine the ability of all students, especially low-income
    students, to access and afford higher education.
        They would not make cuts to Pell Grants that would reduce
    or eliminate access for up to four million students. They would
    not cut student loan subsidies, raising costs for an average
    borrower by up to $200 a month. They would not make student
    loan repayments even more difficult and push more students into
    the predatory private loan market. They would not include
    devastating cuts to Medicaid which would deprive roughly 3.4
    million low-income students of much-needed healthcare.
        Republicans showed us very clearly that their priority is
    tax cuts for billionaires, not affordable higher education. So,
    it's a little difficult to take their concerns seriously today.
        This hearing also comes in the context of the Trump
    Administration's all-out assault on education and research at
    colleges and universities across the country, and particularly
    at Ivy League and other elite universities. The administration
    slashed billions of dollars in research grants to universities
    which will set back technological innovation and medical
    advances by decades, not to mention harming our economic
    growth.
        At the same time, they are revoking student visas and
    sending an unmistakable message to prospective students around
    the globe that they are not welcome. The result is that the
    brightest minds in the world, who once flocked to this country,
    will now move to bring their brains and talents elsewhere.
        This attack on higher education has an even more sinister
    purpose. Its real target is academic freedom. Taking a page
    from the authoritarian playbook, the Trump Administration is
    using every tool at its disposal in a pressure campaign to
    impose its ideologies on independent academic institutions, and
    to bend them into submission.
        Unfortunately, they have a willing partner in the
    Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Instead of using their
    power as legislators to make education cheaper, more
    accessible, and easier to pay off for all Americans,
    Republicans are using the power of this Committee to aid and
    abet President Trump's ideological war against the very narrow
    slice of higher ed institutions.
        How absurdly narrow is their focus? They are targeting
    eight schools out of about 4,000 in the United States. That
    amounts to a focus on less than one-half of one percent of the
    American undergraduate population.
        While President Trump threatens individual schools with
    cuts for not adhering to his ideology, they are using the power
    and resources of this Committee to pursue yet another empty
    antitrust theory so that they can bully their political
    targets. Sadly, this follows a familiar pattern.
        Last Congress, this Subcommittee unleashed baseless
    antitrust investigations designed to undermine the free speech
    rights of advertisers and investors that held views disfavored
    by the Majority. When advertisers made the reasonable
    determination that they did not want their brands associated
    with extremist views and hate speech on social media platforms,
    Republicans used a flawed antitrust theory to justify a
    campaign to threaten and intimidate them into abandoning their
    efforts as responsible advertisers.
        When investors threatened the profits of big oil and gas
    companies by considering the risks that climate change posed to
    our economic future, the Committee rushed to the defense of
    their corporate allies with another hollow antitrust
    investigation.
        Now, today, they return to the same tired playbook, using
    the power of this Committee to support the Trump
    Administration's efforts to target academic institutions. After
    having launched an overbroad fishing expedition against Ivy
    League universities, they are now holding a hearing today to
    justify these efforts at harassment and intimidation.
        As I noted at the outset, there are real concerns when it
    comes to the cost of tuition at colleges and universities. If
    there is indeed collusion among the Ivy League schools,
    enforcement by our antitrust agencies, the Federal Trade
    Commission and the Department of Justice, is the answer, not a
    partisan probe that merely serves as another broadside against
    education in America under President Trump.
        There is much we could do together to bring down the cost
    of tuition and broaden access to education. Unfortunately,
    Republicans would rather slash student loans to pay for tax
    cuts for billionaires, while threatening universities that do
    not bend to Donald Trump's will.
        Unfortunately, there is one clear loser in the Republican
    war on science and education, it is the students they claim to
    support and, I should add, the public that benefits from
    scientific and medical discoveries that will not now happen in
    the United States.
        I appreciate our witnesses for appearing today. I look
    forward to hearing from them.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee Mr. Jordan
    for his opening statement.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        First, they set the same general price. Second, they demand
    large amounts of information from the students and their
    families for each student. Then, they squeeze every dime they
    can out of that family for tuition. Third, they limit class
    size.
        So, they agree on price, they perfect-price discriminate,
    and they limit output. That is about as anticompetitive
    behavior as you can get.
        Then, with this windfall of money they get, perfect-price
    discrimination, collusion on the price, limiting the class
    sizes at the institution, there is a windfall of money they get
    from students and their families, and the Government, the
    taxpayers, they hire an unbelievable amount of administrators.
    Mr. Shay has pointed that out. Such a deal. Such a deal for
    taxpayers and families.
        That is what is going on. Thank goodness the Chair is
    having a hearing on this. It is ridiculous, and everyone knows
    it.
        Not to mention all the crazy things we saw and witnessed at
    these institutions over the last few years: All kinds of crazy
    protests, taking over buildings, and antisemitic behavior. Not
    to mention all that, that is what is going on. The Ranking
    Member of the Subcommittee says we are wasting our time? You
    have got to be kidding me. The taxpayers appreciate that their
    tax money actually is used in the right way, not like it is
    being used at these institutions.
        So, again I want to thank the Chair for this hearing. I
    look forward to our witnesses and thank them for being present
    today and testifying.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
    Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thanks to our
    witnesses for joining us today.
        Republicans convened us in the middle of the night a couple
    weeks ago to pass their billionaire tax break bill, which even
    Elon Musk, their great hero, now calls ``a disgusting
    abomination,'' another class war tax scam that will not only
    throw 14 million Americans off of their Medicaid, but increase
    the national debt by $3 trillion.
        In case our friends missed it, Elon Musk, who you have been
    praising since this administration began, has a message for you
    today: Shame on you. ``Shame on those who voted for it: You
    know you did wrong,'' says Elon Musk.
        So, I was pleasantly surprised to see we were going to have
    a hearing on antitrust because there used to be Republicans
    like progressive trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt who actually
    believed in protecting the American people against price fixing
    conspiracies, monopolies, and run-away corporate power.
        I thought perhaps, Mr. Chair, we could get together to
    protect our personal data, to investigate alleged
    monopolization of live events tickets, and lower prices on
    everything from eggs and other groceries to credit card junk
    fees which have been soaring under the Trump Administration,
    despite his promise that he would lower the price of eggs and
    everything else on day one.
        Silly me. Like everything else, antitrust in the hands of
    our friends is just one more chance to attack America's
    colleges and universities that refuse to surrender control to
    that luminary academic scholar Donald Trump who wants the
    Federal Government to take over faculty hiring, student
    admissions, and academic affairs at every university in
    America.
        I don't even know why Donald Trump is so mad at Harvard.
    They let in his son-in-law Jared Kushner after the Kushner
    family donated $500,000 to get him in. Just like Trump pardoned
    Kushner's father Charles, a major Trump donor who is our new
    Ambassador to France, for his multiple convictions for tax
    evasion and witness tampering.
        Now, that would be a worthwhile hearing, Mr. Chair: How
    wealthy people like the Kushners and the Trumps buy their way
    into America's elite institutions, as Donald Trump calls them.
        Antitrust is now just a weapon of political attack, not
    economic analysis. When businesses advocate sustainable
    investing, House Republicans accuse them of violating
    antitrust.
        When consumers want to exercise the right to boycott,
    Republicans accuse them of violating antitrust.
        Gee, if you don't support their monstrous, ugly tax break
    bill for billionaires they will accuse you of violating
    antitrust. We will probably be having a hearing on how Elon
    Musk is now violating antitrust since he has turned against
    Donald Trump and their appalling bill.
        So, today they are accusing eight universities who
    represent less than half percent of undergraduate students in
    the entire market across America of engaging in some completely
    vague and massive antitrust conspiracy. Republicans actually
    trotted out this pathetically weak theory in the first Trump
    Administration. Of course, no antitrust scholars took it
    seriously. Even their own Department of Justice didn't do
    anything with it.
        They control the Antitrust Division again. Why do they need
    another hearing from this Committee? Why don't they just bring
    their case, if there is a case? They have got the power. That
    is what they have been talking about.
        Look, this is pure power politics. President Trump's
    attacks on higher education reflect a standard move by
    authoritarians like Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Viktor Orban
    in Hungary. This is right out of the dictator's playbook:
    Subdue and control any institution that could provide a check
    on your lying and your corruption; prevent any possibility of
    opposition and dissent from forming against the autocrat and
    his regime; clear a path for the agents of propaganda and
    disinformation; and destroy the institutions that have given us
    great advances in scientific discovery and intellectual
    inquiry, as Mr. Nadler points out.
        J.D. Vance gave the whole game away, by the way, when he
    repeatedly quoted Richard Nixon to say, ``the professors are
    the enemy.'' Nixon said, ``The professors are the enemy. Write
    that on the blackboard 100 times and never forget it.''
        The Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon
    ominously warned if schools want to continue to do research,
    they must fall in line with the administration and its goals.
    They must be ``in sync . . . with the administration and what
    the administration is trying to accomplish.''
        That is a Federal Government takeover of every private and
    public university and college in America.
        Now, Harvard has stood up to the administration's attempted
    hostile takeover, rejecting its blatantly unconstitutional
    demands to control its governance, its curriculum, and the
    ideology of its faculty and students.
        In response, the administration has come after the
    university's research contracts and grants and, more recently,
    even its ability to enroll foreign students, only to be shut
    down by the courts, and not Left-wing rogue Democrat judges,
    but Republican judges, too, for violating the university's
    First Amendment rights.
        We have got academic freedom in America under the First
    Amendment. Now, the Trump Administration ridiculously threatens
    to come after the university's tax-exempt status. They want to
    revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, and they have asked all
    Federal agencies to cancel all the contracts they have with
    Harvard to get the work of the American people done, contracted
    work.
        Trump is losing in court every day. Harvard is winning as
    it stands up for academic freedom and its right to make
    scientific and academic progress. Hundreds of colleges and
    universities across the country are standing with Harvard.
        DHS said, Kristi Noem has said that the actions against
    Harvard should serve as a warning to all universities and all
    academic institutions. After Trump canceled more than 1.5
    billion in research grants, we know that State universities and
    community colleges have been hit hard. At smaller schools'
    researchers are going to lose their jobs, labs will close, and
    important work will go undone.
        Our Republican colleagues have no interest in making higher
    ed more acceptable and more affordable. In their big, beautiful
    bill they are cutting programs that help students pay for
    college, all to fund their tax cuts for the wealthiest
    Americans.
        Those cuts to higher education in America include severe
    limits on Pell eligibility, the end to subsidized loans, and a
    host of other disruptive changes that will push colleges way
    out of reach for hundreds of thousands of Americans.
        The administration also proposed nearly an 80 percent
    reduction in Federal work-study funding, and eliminating
    support for child care for students who are parents.
        What world are these people living in? This is breathtaking
    duplicity to claim that the Ivy League schools are conspiring
    against their students to make unaffordable when House
    Republicans are complicit in the largest setback in access to
    higher education for working class Americans in decades.
        Not content to undermine American students through these
    direct cuts to education, they are also proposing cutting $880
    billion from Medicaid and $300 billion from SNAP, the Nation's
    primary antihunger program.
        Do you know what happens to millions of low-income students
    who don't have healthcare and don't have enough food to eat?
    Most of them are going to drop out of school.
        Today's hearing just regurgitates the MAGA agenda:
    Persecute and punish anyone who refuses to submit to Donald
    Trump's Right-wing ideological agenda or gets in the way of
    their plan to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans on the
    backs of everybody else. It is a cruel, dangerous program, and
    it has got nothing to do with antitrust law.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. Without
    objection, all other opening statements will be included in the
    record.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. I will now introduce the witnesses.
        Dr. Preston Cooper. Dr. Cooper is a Senior Fellow at the
    American Enterprise Institute where his work focuses on higher
    education, student loans, and higher education reform.
        He previously served as a Senior Fellow in Higher Education
    Policy at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a
    Research Analyst at AEI, and as a Policy Analyst at The
    Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
        Next, Mr. Alex Shieh. Mr. Shieh is a rising junior at Brown
    University where he studies computer science and economics. He
    is also a journalist, serving as a contributing opinion writer
    for The Boston Globe, and as the publisher of The Brown
    Spectator.
        Mr. Scott Martin. Mr. Martin is Partner and Co-Chair of the
    Antitrust Practice Group at Hausfeld LLP. He has spent more
    than 25 years in civil litigation. His practice specializes in
    pricing distribution and other competition issues.
        Ms. Julie Margetta Morgan. Ms. Morgan is the President of
    The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank. She
    previously served as the Associate Director of Research,
    Monitoring, and Regulations at the Consumer Financial
    Protection Bureau.
        We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing
    today. We will begin by swearing you in.
        Would you please rise and raise your right hand.
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
    testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
    of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
        [Affirmative replies.]
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
    have answered in the affirmative.
        Thank you. You can be seated.
        Please know that your written testimony will be entered
    into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
    summarize your testimony in five minutes.
        Dr. Cooper, you may begin.

                    STATEMENT OF MR. PRESTON COOPER

        Mr. Cooper. Good morning, Chair Fitzgerald, Chair Jordan,
    Ranking Member Raskin, Ranking Member Nadler, and distinguished
    Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today on the enrollments and pricing practices of Ivy
    League universities. My name is Preston Cooper, and I am a
    Senior Fellow focusing on the economics of higher education at
    the American Enterprise Institute.
        The eight institutions of the Ivy League show many
    hallmarks of anticompetitive behavior. Most Ivy League
    institutions severely limit undergraduate admissions, turning
    away thousands of qualified applicants. The schools charge
    among the highest tuition prices in the country and are less
    likely to provide financial aid than other private
    institutions.
        At the same time, Ivy League universities enjoy a
    significant surplus that funds high levels of institutional
    expenditures, administrative bloat, and seven-figure salaries
    for some college presidents.
        Some Ivy League universities recently enjoyed an exemption
    from antitrust law, provided they admitted students on a need-
    blind basis. In 2022, a group of students filed a class-action
    lawsuit against 17 elite universities, including several Ivies,
    alleging that admissions are not actually need-blind.
        Most of these schools eventually settled the lawsuit for a
    collective $320 million.
        Another lawsuit was filed in 2024, alleging that elite
    universities have continued to coordinate their pricing
    decisions even after the antitrust exemption expired.
        My testimony does not take a position on whether Ivy League
    universities are coordinating their pricing decisions, or
    whether they are in violation of Federal antitrust law. The
    enrollment, pricing, and spending practices of the Ivy League
    raise some red flags.
        Classic cartels limit supply to drive up prices and
    profits. We observe a version of this happening among Ivy
    League schools.
        Let's start with restrictions on supply, a fundamental
    aspect of cartel behavior.
        Harvard College admitted about 2,200 students to join the
    Class of 1982. Due to population increases and higher rates of
    overall college attendance, one might expect that number to
    grow. Instead, Harvard admitted just over 1,900 students to
    join its Class of 2028.
        Unlike most other private colleges, Ivy League universities
    have mostly not increased admissions to match rising demands.
    Instead, the schools have opted to become more selective, with
    the average Ivy League admissions rate falling from 15 percent
    in 2002 to just five percent in 2022.
        As student demand rises, but Ivy League institutions keep
    admissions relatively flat, the obvious result is an upward
    pressure on prices. The annual price of tuition and fees at Ivy
    League universities ranged between $59,000-$69,000 in the
    previous academic year. That is between 56-82 percent higher
    than the average for private colleges.
        Ivy League students are also less likely to receive
    financial aid. While 84 percent of students at non-Ivy colleges
    enjoy a discount off the sticker price, the share of Ivy League
    students receiving institutional financial aid is just 52
    percent.
        In a traditional cartel, restricted supply and higher
    prices enable monopoly like profits. While nonprofit
    universities don't earn profits in the traditional sense, they
    still enjoy surplus revenues. Ivy League universities spend an
    average of $126,000 per full-time equivalent student, compared
    to just $35,000 for the average private college. These high
    levels of spending fuel a vast administrative bureaucracy.
        The average Ivy League institution employs one
    noninstructional staffer for every two students, compared to
    one staffer for every six students at other private colleges.
        All this matters because Ivy League institutions have an
    outsize impact on the future of America. Ivy League graduates
    are vastly over-represented among elites in business, politics,
    and media. A group of institutions which limit enrollments and
    charges excessive prices denies opportunity to thousands of
    students, particularly middle-class students with strong
    academic qualifications, who face an unfairly low likelihood of
    admission today.
        The surplus revenues that Ivy League institutions currently
    enjoy fuel administrative bloat, but they could instead be used
    to create more seats for qualified applicants.
        The market for elite education bears many of the telltale
    signs of anticompetitive behavior. Whether it meets the legal
    definition of a cartel is an open question, but it
    unambiguously leaves students and society worse off.
        Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Dr. Cooper.
        We will now recognize Mr. Martin for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF SCOTT MARTIN

        Mr. Martin. Thank you. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin,
    Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Member Nadler, and distinguished
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for extending an
    invitation to testify today.
        My name is Scott Martin. I am an attorney whose work has
    been focused on antitrust litigation for more than 30 years.
    That includes more than two decades primarily spent on defense
    work, and the past 10 years principally litigating on behalf of
    plaintiffs. I am also an author and co-editor of a multi-volume
    antitrust treatise. I care deeply about the benefits of
    competition and free markets, which is a truly bipartisan goal,
    as well as active but fair enforcement of our Nation's
    antitrust laws.
        As the Members of the Subcommittee know, the antitrust laws
    address both unilateral conduct--anticompetitive acts
    undertaken by a single actor with market power--and concerted
    conduct, particularly when the latter involves direct, or
    ``horizontal,'' competitors. Most of my remarks will be
    directed to the latter as an area of concern regarding higher
    education historically--principally, the potential for cartel
    activity which the U.S. Supreme Court has labeled ``the supreme
    evil of antitrust.''
        In testifying today, I make no prejudgment about any
    current conduct, nor has my law firm represented a party in the
    cases I will discuss. Indeed, the hope of antitrust lawyers is
    always that free markets are operating properly and that
    unlawful conduct is not interfering with that. There are
    several reasons here for heightened vigilance to protect and
    encourage robust competition in higher education.
        First, as Members of the Subcommittee, as well as many
    American students and parents know, the price of higher
    education, specifically for private schools, has outpaced the
    rate of inflation. Since I was in college, the consumer price
    index has inflated the dollar by a factor of three, but tuition
    prices at the most selective institutions, in particular, have
    gone up on the order of seven-fold.
        Meanwhile, output in terms of class size has not kept pace
    with population growth. This is true despite increased demand
    and increasing multibillion-dollar endowments. Commonsense begs
    the question whether such a market is working properly.
        Second, the somewhat cloistered nature of these
    institutions, their nonprofit status, not to be confused with
    their massive endowments, and a belief, of which I am not
    questioning the sincerity, that they are engaged in noble work
    for the advancement of knowledge, may create an atmosphere
    suggesting that relaxation of rules of competition would be
    appropriate for this industry. Not so.
        Most legal scholars will tell you not only that antitrust
    exemptions are rare, and rightly so, but also that special
    sectoral rules and regulations have at best a mixed track
    record in our Nation. In a different higher educational, my law
    firm brought the O'Bannon case that challenged NCAA restraints
    on college applicants. That marketplace has flourished, and the
    sky has not fallen.
        Third, there are numerous markers here, familiar to
    antitrust practitioners, that this is a market ripe for
    distortion by collusion. Among other things, this is a somewhat
    concentrated industry with relatively few highly selective
    institutions as participants. There are numerous opportunities
    for those entities to collude--whether directly, such as at
    meetings of university presidents, or facilitated through
    intermediaries such as the College Board. There are, of course,
    exceptionally high barriers to entry into the market.
        As I mentioned, by way of context, this industry has been
    the subject of investigations and litigation raising
    competition concerns in the past, on issues ranging from no-
    poach agreements concerning graduate school faculty members to
    monopolization of markets for college bookstore sales, and
    local housing.
        A ``Common Application'' used by over 1,000 colleges and
    universities throughout the United States also has been the
    subject of a private antitrust action, ultimately settled.
        Perhaps most pertinent to the Subcommittee here, in 1989,
    as you have heard, the DOJ filed a civil antitrust case against
    a group of universities alleged to have employed the same
    analysis to compute family contributions toward the costs of
    attendance, for purposes of collectively determining financial
    assistance offered to commonly admitted students.
        That case resulted in a 10-year consent decree in 1991,
    under which those universities committed not to agree on
    student financial aid. It subsequently led to congressional
    passage of the so-called ``568 Exemption'' permitting colleges
    to formulate common approaches to awarding financial aid,
    provided they strictly adhered to need-blind admissions.
        The 568 Exemptions expired on September 30, 2022, and was
    not renewed. However, as you know, current and former college
    students allege, in a class action filed in 2022, that members
    of the ``568 Presidents Group'' of 17 top private colleges and
    universities have conspired to eliminate competition among them
    for financial aid. To date, 12 of those 17 schools have
    resolved the lawsuit in settlements totaling approximately $320
    million.
        I thank you again for your attention and your vigilance in
    this regard.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Martin.
        Mr. Shieh, you may begin.

                        STATEMENT OF ALEX SHIEH

        Mr. Shieh. Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Member Nadler, Chair
    Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, thank you for inviting to appear
    before you today.
        My name is Alex Shieh, and I am a rising junior at Brown
    University, one of the most exclusive institutions in the
    world. I am not here to glorify the Ivy League. I am here to
    warn you the promise of American higher education, of
    opportunity to a meritocracy is under attack.
        I am a legacy student at Brown. I went to a prep school
    that feeds to the Ivy League. My parents are doctors who can
    afford the $93,000 a year sticker price. In other words, I am
    exactly who the Ivy League was built for.
        What about the kids who weren't born on third base?
        Statistically speaking, for a smart kid from a poor family
    an Ivy League degree can power their ascent to the upper income
    brackets better than anything else. That is the American dream.
    Today, that dream is now a luxury good.
        According to The New York Times, at Brown the median
    student's family makes over $200,000 a year. Half of the
    student body comes from the top five percent of earners.
    Research by Brown's own Professor John Friedman shows that even
    equally qualified low-income students are vastly under-
    represented.
        At this very moment the American people are tightening
    their belts. Brown is raising tuition to be beyond $90,000 a
    year. Even while charging students the price of a luxury car,
    Brown is on track to run a $46 million deficit this year.
        Where is all the money going?
        I will tell you where it is going. It is going into an
    empire of administrative bloat and bureaucracy. Brown employs
    3,805 full-time noninstructional staff for just 7,229
    undergrads. That is one administrator for every two students.
    This isn't education, this is bloat paid for on the backs of
    students and families who are mortgaging their futures for a
    shot at a better life.
        Meanwhile, Grace Calhoun, Brown's athletic director, earns
    over $1 million. A household assistant on payroll tends to
    University President Christina Paxson. When budget cuts are
    made, these expenses stay while the student experience
    deteriorates.
        My dorm floods when it rains. The burger patties in our
    dining hall have been replaced by an unappetizing beef-mushroom
    blend.
        The idea that Brown's administration can be streamlined
    isn't conjecture. We didn't use to have this many
    administrators. Across the Nation the number of university
    administrators has risen by 162 percent in recent decades. It
    is no coincidence that, correspondingly, the cost of education
    has risen 181 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since the
    Nineties.
        Across the pond, a world class education at Oxford or
    Cambridge can cost about half as much as an Ivy League degree,
    in part due to a much lower administrative burden.
        The status quo has a real human cost. I recently learned of
    a brilliant young man from Pensacola, Florida, who got into
    Brown but was forced to walk away because the financial aid
    wasn't enough.
        Brown says it meets 100 percent of demonstrated need. Brown
    gets to decide what that need is. Middle class students in
    particular suffer from these policies, earning too much to
    qualify for generous scholarships, but not enough to go to
    Brown without straddling themselves with significant amounts of
    debt.
        Let's not forget that Brown is one of several Ivy League
    schools that settled a Federal antitrust lawsuit last year for
    allegedly colluding to suppress financial offers.
        I am a reporter for The Brown Spectator. To document this
    problem I created a website called ``Bloat at Brown'' that used
    AI to assist whether each administrative role was actually
    necessary. I sent each administrative employee a DOGE-style
    email to ask them, ``What do you do all day?''
        Instead of answering, Brown's response was retaliation. My
    Social Security number was leaked. Our website was hacked.
    Associate Dean Kirsten Wolfe launched a disciplinary
    investigation into a litany of baseless charges such as
    emotional harm.
        When they couldn't get me, they charged every single board
    member of The Brown Spectator, an unprecedented attack on
    student journalism. We refused to back down and we won our
    hearings. There was no misconduct, only exposure. That is what
    Brown feared the most.
        This Committee has a responsibility not just to investigate
    Ivy League antitrust violations, but to reclaim the American
    dream from those who have twisted it into a racket. I call on
    you today to subpoena Brown's President Christina Paxson and
    ask her why Brown costs $93,000 a year.
        The American dream isn't just for the legacies, the coastal
    elites, or the children of privilege, it belongs to the kid in
    rural Kansas with a 4.0 GPA, the first gen student working a
    night shift, and the families who did everything right and
    still got priced out. They deserve a seat at the table. They
    deserve a shot at making it big. Their American dreams matter,
    too.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shieh follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Shieh.
        Dr. Morgan, you may begin.

                   STATEMENT OF JULIE MARGETTA MORGAN

        Ms. Margetta Morgan. Good morning, Chair Fitzgerald,
    Ranking Member Nadler, and the Members of the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing.
        The rising cost of college beyond high school in this
    country is a major concern for many American families. Whether
    they are looking at an associate's degree in nursing, a
    vocational certificate to become an HVAC technician, or a four-
    year degree in business, Americans looking to get ahead in the
    job market are facing high tuition bills. Most students are
    forced to cope by taking on student loan debt that becomes a
    life-long burden.
        I applaud the Committee's interest in costs of higher
    education. However, the focus of this inquiry is misplaced. Ivy
    League institutions claim less than 0.4 percent of
    undergraduate students in this country, whereas the vast
    majority of students attend public community colleges and open-
    access city colleges.
        Ivy League admissions and tuition practices have no effect
    on the schools that most Americans attend. Looking for a
    solution to college costs in the Ivy League is like looking for
    a needle in a haystack while the rest of the haystack is on
    fire.
        Here's the latest source of that fire: Legislation approved
    by the House of Representatives to pay for tax cuts for the
    richest Americans by increasing the price of college for low-
    and middle-income students, including taking away Pell Grants
    from 1.4 million Americans and reducing them for another three
    million.
        The deep cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in that bill will also
    likely increase public school tuition by squeezing the State
    budget, as higher education will be at the top of the chopping
    block to cover State budget shortfalls.
        Antitrust at elite colleges is deeply inadequate for
    solving the problem of high prices at college in America.
    Attempting to leverage antitrust as a global fix to college
    pricing and admissions while simultaneously slashing Federal
    support for higher education could very well result in less
    access to college for low- and middle-income families, not
    more.
        Congress has powerful tools at hand that could really
    change the price of college and improve the value of the
    Government's investment that are outside of this Committee's
    jurisdiction.
        For example, the Federal Government could use its muscular
    role in higher education finance to the advantage of millions
    of American families by negotiating the price of college
    tuition. There is a strong bipartisan precedent for this in
    Medicare, where the Federal Government assigns payment rates to
    healthcare services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.
        While Ivy League practices don't trickle down to open-
    access schools, the predatory practices of for-profit colleges
    are definitely trickling up. Community colleges must contend
    with for-profit schools that siphon off students through
    aggressive marketing and then leave them with high debt and low
    earnings potential. As Congress looks to roll back regulation
    of for-profit colleges, these conditions will only worsen.
        Last, today's focus on Ivy League colleges comes after a
    string of actions by Government leaders aimed at gaining
    unprecedented levels of control over the minutia of
    administration at certain elite colleges. Instead of simply
    enforcing the law, Federal officials are openly looking for any
    punitive measures that they can apply to bend a handful of
    wealthy elite colleges to their will.
        Federal officials have put forward a variety of diffuse
    reasons for its obsession with the Ivies, but I think this plan
    of attack taken as a whole is most reasonably viewed as an
    attempt to turn back the clock and restore the role of the
    Harvards and Yales of the world as finishing schools for the
    children of wealthy and well-connected, rather than knowledge
    centers to completely evaluate the challenge social and
    political trends.
        This attack on Ivy League schools has worrisome parallels
    to the actions of an authoritarian regime. Regardless of our
    views on elite higher education, it should be of concern
    because it is a sharp departure from the law and from our norms
    and democratic values.
        A strong higher education system is critical to the
    country's economic strength, to the strength of our democracy,
    and to creating more broadly shared prosperity. We need to be
    working together to ensure that we are building a system that
    meets all our Communities' needs.
        Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Margetta Morgan follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman yields back.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Nadler. I have a unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter
    ``China Really Wants to Attract Talented Scientists. Trump Just
    Helped,'' from today's The New York Times.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Dr. Morgan.
        We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
    questions. The gentleman from California is recognized, Mr.
    Issa.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you. Dr. Morgan, you went to Boston
    College, also known as one of the New Ivies; right?
        Ms. Morgan. I did go to Boston College for law school. I
    have no idea whether it is called the New Ivy.
        Mr. Issa. Google says it is. Who else can we ask?
        The bottom line is undergraduate is now over $67,000, over
    $88,000 all-inclusive. Is that one of the elite schools that
    you would be referring to beyond the original eight Ivy
    Leagues?
        Ms. Morgan. Absolutely. I do think that colleges like--
        Mr. Issa. Good. Let me ask you a question.
        Since you made such a point that Boston College, or other
    colleges, the basic eight, and we will just add the New Ivies
    that charge similar amounts, they should be exempt from
    antitrust because they have a small market share and cater to
    the ultra-rich?
        Ms. Morgan. My testimony offers no opinion--
        Mr. Issa. No, no, no. You made a point as an antitrust
    point that because they had such a small market share they had
    little or no effect.
        Ms. Morgan. I am sorry. Can I answer the question?
        Mr. Issa. No. I want you to answer that question.
        Ms. Morgan. OK. So, the point I am making about the--
        Mr. Issa. I don't want to know the point you are making.
    You can say yes or no. Did you say that?
        Ms. Morgan. Can you restate the question, please? What did
    I say?
        Mr. Issa. You said, and I will paraphrase--thank you very
    much--you said that we shouldn't be concentrating on them
    because they had such a small market share. Is market share a
    factor in the antitrust activity of multiple companies working
    together in collusion?
        Ms. Morgan. I believe we should be focusing on--
        Mr. Issa. Now, thank you for not answering that. You make
    it easy on me, Doctor.
        Mr. Martin, is collusion, even without large market share,
    if it makes prices unreasonably high, if it has an effect, is
    that antitrust behavior?
        Mr. Martin. It is per se unlawful.
        Mr. Issa. OK. So, you have per se unlawful behavior
    alleged. Yet, the Democrat's witness for some strange reason
    wants to say, oh, don't look at that shiny object, instead,
    what we heard today was give us more funding for the bloated
    State universities that also are raising their prices.
        Mr. Shieh, you described yourself as sort of part of the
    wealthy and entitled, which is unusual in this body for anyone.
    Everyone else seems to want to be Horatio Alger.
        Your family was able to pay what needed to be paid at an
    Ivy League school, correct?
        Mr. Shieh. Right. Most Americans can't afford this, $93,000
    a year. That is 150 percent of the median American income.
        Mr. Issa. OK. The evidence that is being presented today is
    that the effect is not just Ivy League schools, but if you take
    away the subsidies being paid by other taxpayers, all
    universities are rising at very high rates because of these
    practices, including what you talked about, this massive amount
    of overhead, if you will, inefficient overhead by
    administrators?
        Mr. Shieh. Absolutely. Administrative overhead is growing
    not just at the Ivy League, but at State universities all
    across the country. It has risen dramatically in recent years.
        Mr. Issa. Dr. Cooper, is it fair to say that one of the
    things you see among cartels, antitrust activity and so on, is
    you see higher prices and less efficient, higher overhead?
    Isn't that kind of a hallmark when you give antitrust
    exemption?
        Mr. Cooper. That is correct. We often see higher prices and
    higher profits.
        Mr. Issa. So, for our witnesses, is it fair to say that if,
    in fact, we bring back real competition at all levels, at all
    universities, and as a result we then would be able to drive
    down prices, drive up efficiency, we could, in fact, allow more
    people to be able to leave college without burdensome debt?
        Mr. Cooper. I think that is correct. We need more
    competition in higher education.
        Mr. Issa. OK. So, today's hearing is really about antitrust
    behavior by the most esteemed universities.
        Mr. Shieh, I am going to ask you a question. Is it your
    understanding as a rising junior, if I am correct, that if you
    go to one of these great universities the rest of your life
    your career income is on average greater, isn't it?
        Mr. Cooper. This is empirically true that going to an Ivy
    League school can definitely raise your potential earnings,
    especially if you are from a low-income family.
        Mr. Issa. So, Mr. Martin, the tendency by the universities
    that will deliver the highest lifetime earning to restrict, to
    reduce and, as a result, to deny to the people who otherwise
    would have that opportunity, isn't that one of the real
    detriments of this antitrust behavior?
        Mr. Martin. It should trouble us as antitrust lawyers.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the Ranking Member for five minutes.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Morgan, before I
    begin my questions can you please give your answer to Mr.
    Issa's question on market size?
        Ms. Morgan. Yes. I believe that market size is relevant
    here to the question of where we should be focusing our
    attention. The vast majority of students in America do not
    attend Ivy League colleges. They don't attend colleges who are
    affected by the competitive forces that the Committee is
    discussing here today.
        We need to be focused on open-access colleges and community
    colleges who take their cues from the State legislators and
    Federal legislators who provide sufficient resources for their
    budget.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. For many, college is a good
    investment that ensures greater earnings over a lifetime and an
    opening to the middle class. However, the cost situation at
    many schools is too high, closing the door to families who
    cannot afford the high sticker price.
        Despite this affordability problem and the growing
    disparity between the richest few and the many who are seeing
    rising prices in all parts of the market, the Republicans'
    reconciliation bill takes direct aim at student loan programs
    and other critical student aid program.
        The Trump Administration has also taken aim at students and
    universities while pulling critical research funding and
    kidnapping students and academics off the street.
        Dr. Morgan, how does the Republican budget impact low-
    income students and the public's access to higher education
    going forward?
        Ms. Morgan. The Republican budget is going to have drastic
    negative impact on the cost of higher education for most
    students in this country. As I said in my testimony, ``it is
    going to cut programs for millions of students, making them
    foot the bill for more of college.'' It is going to make
    student loans more expensive to repay on the backend.
        It caps the amount of Federal student loans that people can
    take on but not the amount of tuition, meaning that more people
    are going to have to take on private student loans to cover
    that gap.
        Mr. Nadler. How does higher education support the country
    and our economy generally?
        Ms. Morgan. Higher education is incredibly important to our
    economy, and it serves a number of focuses.
        First, those open-access schools and community colleges
    that I referred to are educating people to become doctors--
    sorry, to become nurses, nurse practitioners, HVAC repair
    people, electricians, and the people who serve our communities
    every day and make our economy robust.
        Our educational institutions also provide funding for--or
    receive funding to do research that provides innovations that
    are incredibly important to our society. They make us safer,
    they make us healthier, and they make our country more
    competitive.
        Mr. Nadler. Well, following up on that, how does the
    gutting of Federal research programs at the National Institutes
    of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
    the National Science Foundation impact not just the
    institutions but society and even humanity?
        Ms. Morgan. I think we are all going to feel the impacts of
    these cuts for a long time. We are not going to be developing
    the drugs that make us safer and healthier in this country. We
    are not going to be developing the innovations to help keep us
    competitive and power manufacturing within our country.
        It is going to have a really big impact on us as a whole. I
    also think it is going to move more innovation to the private
    sector, which means that we are really only going to be
    developing the innovations that are profitable, and not
    necessarily the ones that are best for the public as a whole.
        Mr. Nadler. Most of our drugs are not initially profitable
    without Federal research.
        Dr. Morgan, the United States has been the beneficiary of
    foreign students coming here, being educated here, the best and
    the brightest. Staying here is one of the reasons for our
    scientific supremacy.
        What is the effect of the Trump Administration's hostility
    to foreign students, and denials of visas, and even the
    revocations of visas, what will be the effect on our economy
    and on our scientific supremacy?
        Ms. Morgan. Yes. First, we have to view this attack on
    foreign students at American colleges as part of a larger
    punitive effort to bend certain colleges to the
    administration's will.
        So, this is really part of an effort to turn the screws
    into any place that the administration can, to bring colleges
    around to a--
        Mr. Nadler. Well, what would be the result?
        Ms. Morgan. Oh, sure. The result of this change to
    admission for international students is going to have an effect
    on our country's ability to bring in minds from across the
    world and benefit from their academic excellence to provide an
    opportunity for those students to take part in our democracy
    and learn our values.
        Mr. Nadler. In short, it promises to shift scientific
    primacy from the United States to China. Would you agree with
    that?
        Ms. Morgan. I totally agree with that.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Washington for five minutes.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding
    this important hearing. There is zero doubt that the Ivy League
    institutions behave in an anticompetitive manner.
        In fact, if you look at their pricing and value marketing
    model, it looks very similar to some famous jewel companies and
    how they control supply of diamonds and inflate what is a
    commodity into a precious item of limited scarcity.
        I do believe that American higher education is a gem of
    American society. What it does for research, social mobility,
    and overall aid to our economy is extremely important.
        Unfortunately, it is a gem that has been thrust into the
    mud, largely by Democratic leadership. Democrats are great if
    you are a college administrator and want to see your salary
    increase, or your job supply increase. They are terrible if you
    are a college student and you don't want to see your debt
    levels increase.
        The right price for college should be the price at which a
    student can get through with zero debt. College should be
    priced at the level you can work a part-time job or a summer
    job. The problem with an 18-year-old is they don't know the
    difference between $6,000 in debt or $60,000 in debt if they
    have never had a job and had to pay it back.
        What this body should be doing is how do we create an
    environment where a student, all students can get through
    school with no debt.
        When I was in our State Senate, as Republicans when we took
    control in the State Senate, we actually dropped the price of
    college tuition 20 percent in Washington State under Republican
    leadership because we were working for the middle class.
        I have had the experience of going to a big State school,
    Washington State University, where my father was a professor. I
    spent a year as a teacher at university, Catholic University of
    Mozambique teaching war refugees. I was a teaching fellow at
    Harvard when I did my Master's there. I was on, short-term on
    the faculty at Sciences Po University in Paris, which is kind
    of the Harvard of France.
        Across all those experiences what I saw is that the amount
    of growth in administrators in American universities is simply
    out of control. When you go to Sciences Po there is no
    diversity dean, student housing dean, and student welfare dean.
    There is simply this reliance on college students to behave as
    adults and figure stuff out for themselves. In doing that, they
    are able to provide college at a much, much lower level.
        What this body needs to do is to figure out ways to get out
    all the B.S. out of higher education, get back to basics, and
    create mechanisms to bring costs down.
        I do want to touch on this issue of the Ivy Leagues, and
    Harvard specifically, which does have some real problems.
        When I went to Harvard there was a lack of viewpoint
    diversity. We used to call the Republican Club the Phone Booth
    Club because there were so few of us that we could fit in a
    phone booth. Now, I make that joke and a lot of students don't
    even know what a phone booth is.
        In any event, the solution to this is just to make these
    universities reflective of American society. It is like Noah's
    Ark, increase in access and viewpoint diversity. This shouldn't
    be hard except the fact the far Left does not want to give up
    its stranglehold on America's most elite universities. This is
    going to happen.
        Second, there is a problem with the Chinese Government and
    foreign institutions utilizing America's most elite
    universities.
        When I went to Harvard there was sort of a small-scale
    scandal. They refused to fly the flag of Taiwan at that time.
    In fact, we have some important legislation here in this body
    in the Deterrent Act which we passed out of the House that
    would illuminate how much foreign influence is going on the
    college campuses from places like China. Even today, Harvard
    resists implementing that bill.
        I would like to enter for the record this column, this
    newspaper article that ``Harvard Has Trained So Many Chinese
    Communist Officials, They Call It Their ``Party School.' ''
    There very much is a problem of China at these universities.
        If I could enter this in the record.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Finally, I just want to thank all the panelists for
    fighting this antitrust issue. As we think about these issues,
    we all need to realize that college enrollment is about to go
    off a cliff due to demographic changes in America.
        We have a silver tsunami of older Americans. We have a
    dwindling rapid supply of college students because of
    demographic factors in terms of birth rates, and also the cost.
        This anticompetitive behavior will likely become worse in
    the coming years as the total market for college students will
    reduce.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Nadler is
    recognized for a unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record an article from New America titled, ``The House
    Reconciliation Bill Makes College Less Affordable, All to Pay
    for Tax Cuts for Millionaires and Billionaires,'' and argues
    low income to moderate students will ``borrow more, but with
    worse terms.''
        I also seek unanimous consent to enter into the record, two
    articles: One entitled ``The Number of 18 Year Olds is About to
    Drop Sharply,'' as the gentleman said.
        Another entitled ``Declining Enrollment is Leading to
    School Closures.''
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without Objection.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
    Mr. Raskin, is now recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Shieh, so you
    describe yourself as a son of wealth and privilege. I think you
    described yourself as a legacy student.
        Does that mean your parents or your grandparents went to
    Brown?
        Mr. Shieh. Yes. My father went to Brown.
        Mr. Raskin. Other than having some complaints like the beef
    mushroom blend, you are really speaking not so much for
    yourself, but for other kids. You say the kids who are not born
    on third base, is that right?
        Mr. Shieh. Absolutely. The value of an Ivy League degree
    used to mean that you were smart, that you are brilliant. It is
    being diminished.
        Mr. Raskin. As you know, the vast majority of young people
    who want to go to college are not going to be able to go to
    Brown, even if you increase the class sizes, you have
    advocated, by a couple hundred kids. The vast majority are
    going to end up going to, if they can afford it, State
    universities, community colleges, and so on.
        My question for you is, will you use your platform here
    today to oppose the major cuts in Pell Grants, which have
    allowed an avenue for upward mobility in education for young
    people that are built into the current tax bill?
        The 1.4 million Americans would be thrown off. I just
    wonder if you would oppose the cuts to Pell Grants, the cuts to
    student loans, and the 80 percent cuts to college work study,
    which you know allows people to work their way through college?
        Mr. Shieh. Well, I think something that we have observed
    economically is that--
        Mr. Raskin. No, I am going to--like my friend, I am going
    to ask you to answer the question. Do you oppose all those
    cuts, or do you support them?
        Mr. Shieh. I guess, I believe that subsidizing education
    only increases the cost, because they do.
        Mr. Raskin. You favor those cuts. You would just get rid of
    the Pell Grant program, is that right?
        Mr. Shieh. I am not an expert on the Pell Grant program. I
    know that generally--
        Mr. Raskin. You seem to be an expert. You don't favor
    Federal student aid to kids who want to go to college, for Pell
    Grants or college work study. You are opposed to that?
        Mr. Shieh. I think that when students don't pay the cost of
    going to college, then we have seen prices rise.
        Mr. Raskin. You have made yourself clear. Thank you for
    coming in for your testimony.
        Look, a point was made before that collusion is per se
    illegal, which of course is true as a matter of antitrust law.
    Per se collusion is only legal if there is actually per se
    collusion.
        Now, this reminds me of a hearing that we did over in the
    Oversight Committee with Chair Comer about impeachment where
    the Republicans lined up all these witnesses about impeachment
    of Joe Biden and then all of them said that they did not see
    evidence, they were not aware of evidence that would justify
    impeachment.
        So, the two expert witnesses here, Dr. Cooper and Mr.
    Martin, as I am reading your testimony, are saying that they
    don't have evidence of price fixing.
        Mr. Martin says, I think you just stated it, I am making no
    judgment about any current conduct. You are not making a
    statement.
        Dr. Cooper, you said, ``My testimony does not take a
    position on whether Ivy Leagues area coordinating their pricing
    decisions or whether they are in violation of Federal antitrust
    law.''
        Again, this is much ado about nothing. This is an attempt
    just to create a propaganda smokescreen to attack the Ivy
    League schools.
        Your expert witnesses are saying that they don't have
    evidence that there are antitrust violations going on. Of
    course, they are correct, because if there were, the Trump
    Department of Justice would actually be engaged in prosecution
    or an investigation of them.
        So, we have one champion of the working class at Brown
    University, who is opposed to Pell Grants and other means for
    kids to actually go to college in America where most kids do go
    to college, and two expert witnesses who don't see price fixing
    taking place by the Ivy League institutions.
        There is a real problem in America: Only 10 percent of
    college students go to for-profit colleges, but they are
    responsible for 50 percent of all student loan defaults.
        I am going to ask for unanimous consent to enter a campaign
    statement by Marco Rubio entitled, ``Trump University is an
    Absolute Scam: Get the Facts About Pending Litigation,'' if we
    could, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Raskin. Dr. Morgan, let me go to you. How does the
    Republican attack on regulatory protections against for-profit
    colleges and universities affect the fraud against students
    taking place in the education market generally?
        Because they are dismantling the regulations that were put
    in place to protect students against for-profit university
    fraud.
        Dr. Morgan. Yes. We are seeing action both here in Congress
    and at the Department of Education that are dismantling or
    laying the groundwork to dismantle all the protections that
    have been put in place for for-profit schools.
        What we have seen cyclically over time, is when those rules
    are pulled back, we have increased enrollment in for-profit
    colleges. We have increased debt that people can't pay off, and
    we have increased allegations of fraud.
        Mr. Raskin. OK. What about their move to abolish the
    Department of Education and to gut the Consumer Financial
    Protection Bureau, will that exacerbate the difficulties that
    young people are having paying for college?
        Dr. Morgan. We are taking the cops off the beat who can
    actually identify that fraud and stop it and put money back
    into people's pockets.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman's time has expired. I ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record the following, an
    article from Ivy Coach titled, ``Ivy League Tuition and Fees
    for 2024-2025,'' comparing tuition rates among the eight Ivy
    League schools.
        Also, an article from Ivy Coach titled, ``Ivy League
    Admission Statistics,'' comparing the acceptance rates among
    the eight Ivy League schools.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. I now recognize the gentleman from
    Virginia.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the hearing,
    and I appreciate the comments of the Ranking Member.
        Let's define what collusion is. Let's actually look at
    Cornell Law School's definition. An Ivy League definition of
    collusion in antitrust law. Horizontal collusion exists where
    competitors at the same market level agree to fix or control
    the prices they will charge for their respective goods or
    services.
        For instance, two parties may collude by limiting or
    restricting supply, sharing insider information, or dividing
    the market. It is very clear that the eight Ivy League member
    institutions have a long history of colluding with each other
    and other elite higher education institutions.
        Back in 1958, they formed a cartel called the Ivy Overlap
    Group that created a common formula for calculating financial
    aid packages to ensure that a student admitted to one or more
    of the Overlap Group institutions would pay the same maximum
    price to attend, regardless of the institution that they chose.
        The Overlap Group would accomplish this by sharing
    information and determining the maximum price that admitted
    students' families could afford to pay.
        Later, operating under a now expired antitrust exemption,
    many of the Ivy League institutions and other elite higher
    education institutions formed the 568 Presidents' Working
    Group, which likewise created a common formula to ensure 568
    PWG schools would not compete on price.
        This behavior led to lawsuits and settlements against many
    of the Ivy League institutions. Dr. Cooper, does this cartel of
    elite higher education institutions have the ability to raise
    the cost for students and their families who are attempting to
    pay for college?
        Mr. Cooper. Absolutely Congressman. I believe the opaque
    financial aid system enables Ivy League colleges to charge much
    higher prices than they would be able to in a competitive
    market.
        There is a billion-dollar consulting industry that helps
    Ivy League institutions figure out exactly how much each family
    is able to pay and then charge that amount.
        Mr. Cline. We have seen collusion on pricing before
    enactment of the Section 568 exemption, and while the exemption
    was in effect. Now, we are concerned it persists today, even
    though the exemption has expired.
        What gaps in enforcement have allowed Ivy League
    institutions to effectively operate as a pricing cartel?
        Mr. Cooper. The prices that colleges charge are very opaque
    right now. You have to apply and be admitted to figure out how
    much you are going to pay.
        At that point, the college sort of has you captive. It is
    going to be very difficult for you to comparison shop at that
    point, go to a different school. You kind of have to accept the
    price that the school is charging you or else maybe not go to
    college.
        Mr. Cline. A similar question to Mr. Martin. These
    institutions through the Overlap Group and the 568 Presidential
    Working Group used this common financial aid formula for
    decades to make sure that they weren't competing on price.
        Do you think that these institutions could still be using
    that same revenue maximizing formula to calculate financial aid
    awards that they used while the exemption was in place?
        Mr. Martin. Well, that is the subject of ongoing litigation
    in the Northern District of Illinois. To put a finer point, I
    make no prejudgment as to what the outcome of that litigation
    would be.
        I only note that 12 of the 17 member institutions have
    settled it for a total of $320 million. It survived a motion to
    dismiss. It has gone on through discovery.
        Quite candidly, some of the documents in that case will be
    challenging for the remaining defendants.
        Mr. Cline. If they are shown to be using the same formula,
    could that present significant antitrust issues?
        Mr. Martin. It could. There is substantial damages alleged
    in the case.
        Mr. Martin. Mr. Shieh, Brown's estimated cost of attendance
    during the 2025-2026 academic year is $97,284 per year. That
    means Brown values a degree from its institution at almost
    $400,000.
        Do you think a degree from Brown is worth nearly $400,000?
        Mr. Shieh. That is a very good question. I think that is
    that empirically it is just barely worth it. That for the kids
    who it could help the most, that is too much for them to pay
    upfront.
        Mr. Cline. I appreciate that. I would argue that it does
    not, the worth is not four times the worth of an in-State
    school or six or eight times that of a community college
    education.
        With that, I would yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman, yields back.
        Ms. Balint. Mr. Chair, I have a UC.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The Member is recognized.
        Ms. Balint. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record ABC News article, ``Judge Finalizes $25 Million
    Settlement for `Victims of Donald Trump's Fraudulent
    University,' '' and a USA today, ``Trump University settlement
    finalized by judge at $25 million.''
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection. The gentleman from
    California is now recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you and the
    Ranking Member. Thank you for holding this hearing today.
        I am sure here in Washington, DC, discussing Brown,
    discussing Harvard, and discussing private elite universities,
    is very important somehow, somewhere, but not to my district or
    blue-collar middle class.
        My dad wasn't a doctor. He was a union worker making
    cardboard boxes. My mom used to clean hotel rooms at a $1.50 an
    hour and we managed to survive.
        My neighbors, myself, we were all in the same boat. We
    never thought about Harvard because we weren't going to have
    the grades, we weren't going to have the money, and we had to
    survive, pay the rent, pay the bills on a day-to-day basis.
        I appreciate holding this hearing today, talking about
    these elite institutions. I can assure you back home, nobody
    gives a darn about this stuff.
        What they care about is how to survive on a day-to-day
    basis. Public policy, government subsidization of public
    education, what is that old saying, ``if it ain't broke, don't
    fix it.''
        The GI Bill, World War II over, the greatest generation
    comes back to the U.S. We decided to pay for their college
    education.
        We educated a generation, the greatest generation that
    built the greatest country in the world on the government dime.
    My generation.
        I did go to Harvard of the West Coast, Cal State Fullerton,
    and a second-rate school. Not at UC, but at Cal State. That was
    right for this kid from the hood.
        By the way, my tuition then was zero, Pell Grant. Pell
    Grant paid for everything, and I skipped a few meals to make it
    happen.
        Here we are today discussing Harvard and Brown. I am going
    to have to go back and tell my constituents that the two or
    three hours you spent here today is going to make a big
    difference in their life.
        I will tell you what they are looking at. Pell Grants, Cal
    Grants, cutting of Pell Grants, and school loans. They want to
    know how they can also get the opportunity to go to college.
        By the way, subsidization of education, I thought we were
    all taxpayers. Do we not have the opportunity as taxpayers to
    say where our tax dollars are going to go? Don't those
    taxpayers go to our children? The greatest gift God gives us,
    our children to educate them.
        What is wrong with a subsidized loan that they will have to
    pay back? What is against public policy here? Again, ``if it
    ain't broke, don't fix it.''
        Let's go a little bit further, current administration,
    public policy, research grants, California, and immigrants. The
    chart behind me shows all the AI companies that have been
    recently started up by immigrants in this country. I thought we
    were supposed to win the AI competition.
        I bring this up in the context of, ``if it ain't broke,''
    why are we changing education, public policy, investing in
    research and development, investing and making sure the best
    and the brightest from around the world come to help us come up
    with new inventions in this country, keep us ahead of the rest
    of the world.
        Again, what is it that is broke that we are trying to fix?
        Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Correa. Go ahead.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Correa, thank you for your very passionate
    and eloquent remarks. What would have happened to you if you
    had not had access to Pell Grants and Cal Grants and public
    money to go to school?
        What would happen to your working-class constituents today?
        Mr. Correa. Well, you are asking me to delve into a
    personal confession. The gift that my father gave me when I
    graduated from high school was he said,

            I can't give you a watch. Can't give you something nice, but I
            can free you. You don't have to help us pay rent or pay the
            bills. You focus on studying, and that is where that financial
            aid came into being.

    This kid from the hood, who wasn't quite ready for college, was
    able to make it with that financial aid.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
    recognize Mr. Gooden from Texas for five minutes.
        Mr. Gooden. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the points Mr.
    Shieh was trying to make was that these universities shouldn't
    be so expensive in the first place.
        None of us want to take away Pell Grants and loan support,
    et cetera, financial aid for anyone that needs it. Our point
    is, it shouldn't cost this much in the first place to the point
    that we need $400,000, whether it is subsidized or not, to pay
    for these degrees.
        I am curious, Mr. Shieh, when you started asking all these
    questions and making noise at Brown University, what was their
    response to you?
        Mr. Shieh. They were not very happy. The Brown
    administration told people not to respond to our emails. Then,
    they hit us with a disciplinary investigation, charging me
    personally for bizarre things such as emotional/psychological
    harm.
        Apparently, that is a real student code of conduct
    violation. I was found not responsible for anything. They also
    dragged in the entire Board of the The Brown Spectator and
    charged all of us. Luckily, we were cleared. That shows that
    there is rot and they are trying to cover it up.
        Mr. Gooden. Isn't that interesting that they had a problem
    with your free speech and the work you were doing, but they did
    not have a problem with the pro-Palestinian encampments and all
    the antisemitism?
        Isn't that just wildly ironic that they would go after
    little old you, just a student that is banging the drum,
    kicking, and screaming, about high costs?
        That pissed them off so much that they started an
    investigation and came after you. They didn't have a problem
    with the antisemitism all over their campus.
        Mr. Shieh. This is certainly a double standard. In 2023, we
    saw that a large group of protestors were actually arrested for
    trespassing.
        They invaded one of the buildings and they were asked to
    leave. They didn't leave. They were arrested, and Brown told
    the prosecutor to drop the charges. They weren't disciplined at
    all. I think there is a clear double standard here.
        Mr. Gooden. Well, I hope you will keep after it. The fact
    that the Democrats on this Committee are going after you, not
    hard, I will give them credit but trying to nail you down on a
    Pell Grant question that it really doesn't have anything to do
    with the point we are trying to make here.
        The point is, if college was not so expensive, we would not
    even need all this financial aid because it would not cost a
    fortune to go to college. It should not cost $400,000. Kids
    that cannot afford it would not need the aid that they get,
    because they would have aid, but we would not need $400,000 of
    it.
        I hope that every child and every student in America can go
    to whatever college they want. They are not going to as long as
    class sizes are limited and the price tags keep going up.
        Another interesting tidbit that I have found in all this,
    are all these endowments. One of my colleagues on the other
    side said, ``taxpayer money was meant to go toward funding
    this.''
        If an Ivy League institution has billions of dollars in
    their endowments--
        Mr. Mr. Correa. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gooden. Then, I am wondering how much needs to be given
    to this university with extra taxpayer dollars? Dr. Cooper,
    will you comment on that?
        Mr. Cooper. Absolutely. Some of these Ivy League
    universities have endowments in the tens of billions. Harvard
    has an endowment North of $50 billion.
        These institutions actually are less likely to provide
    institutional financial aid than other private colleges with
    fewer resources.
        Mr. Gooden. Yet, my colleague over here seems to just be
    outraged that we would want Harvard, Brown, or name your
    university, to use their endowment billions to educate the
    masses rather than to use taxpayer dollars to further their
    cost escalations and their price increases.
        Am I missing something, Dr. Cooper?
        Mr. Cooper. I think you are right. Harvard and other Ivy
    League institutions could certainly be doing a lot more with
    the tremendous resources they have available to make college
    more affordable for their students, and to expand to more
    talented students.
        Mr. Gooden. Well, I praise your work. I am sorry on behalf
    of my colleagues on the Left that seem to be so angry with your
    exposing of the corruption, the collusion, and the exorbitant
    cost increases of Ivy League educations.
        I can't hear one peep out of them with respect to the
    antisemitism in these same Ivy League institutions. They are
    all mad at President Trump for actually standing up against
    this antisemitism that we are seeing.
        They are mad at President Trump for trying to bring down
    the cost. Saying to these Ivy League institutions, we are not
    going to keep sending you money of U.S. taxpayer dollars as
    long as you are helping to propagate this antisemitism.
        They are doing nothing about this. Democrats are so mad at
    the President for standing up for the students, and for
    standing up for the taxpayers that they instead are wasting
    your time going after you.
        Keep it up, Mr. Shieh. Dr. Cooper and Mr. Martin, I
    appreciate your work. I encourage you to keep the pressure on
    Brown, especially Mr. Shieh.
        Don't be discouraged and know that the American people, the
    vast majority of the American people support your efforts, and
    we stand with you, and we share your views. Thank you.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. We have a couple
    of unanimous consent requests. Mr. Correa first.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a unanimous
    consent for including the following items in our record:

         (1)  ``Trump is Crushing America's AI Leadership, We Still
    Have Time to Fix It.'' April 23, 2025.
         (2)  ``JD Vance Wanted to Aggressively Attack American
    Universities.'' June 3, 2025.
         (3)  ``Cost of Federally Sponsored Research.''
         (4)  Infographic on the Associate of American University's
    website, 2022.
         (5)  ``Benefitting Society and the Economy American
    Technology Transfer for 2023.''
         (6)  ``Federal R&D Cuts Would be Another Unforced Policy
    Error.''
         (7)  ``America's R&D Rethink Threatens Its Innovation
    Supremacy.''
         (8)  ``New American Fortune 500 in 2024, American
    Immigration Council.''
         (9)  ``U.S. Scientists Warned that Trump's Cuts Will Set
    Off Rain Drain.''
        (10)  ``These are the U.S. Universities More Dependent on
    International Students.''
        (11)  ``Losing International Students Could DevaState Many
    Colleges.''

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection. I will ask unanimous
    consent to enter into the record the following:
        A Washington Post article titled, ``Students Overpaid Elite
    Colleges $685 Million Price Fixing Suit.''
        A Press Release from Berger Montague titled, ``Plaintiffs
    in Elite University Price Fixing Case Settle with Cal Tech and
    Johns Hopkins.''
        Also, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in support of their
    Motion for Class Certification in the case of Horzo v. Brown.
        The gentlewoman from--
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, I just had one more, if I could.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Go ahead.
        Mr. Raskin. This is just for one article entitled,
    ``Congressional Republicans Budget Reconciliation Bill Imperils
    4.4 Million Pell Grant Recipients.''
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection. The gentlewoman from
    Vermont is now recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We should be able to work
    together and find bipartisan solutions to this problem.
        I have two teenagers myself. They are starting to look at
    colleges. I have got sticker shock, as do most parents who go
    through this process.
        I am really worried about all the talented students who
    don't even apply, not just because of the tuition, or the room
    and board, but simply the fees to apply. It is out of reach for
    so many families.
        The astronomical costs mean working people do not have a
    fair shot at higher education. I think that this is why we have
    been so vocal today about the cuts to the Pell Grant program.
        Everyone seems to agree that the high cost of college is a
    real problem in this country. We can't seem to agree on how it
    is that we are going to bring down tuition costs.
        This is the kind of thing that Americans want us to be
    working on, to the point that my colleague was making here.
    They want us to come together and actually dig into the problem
    of how we solve this so that every student has an opportunity
    to go to college.
        That is not actually why we are here today. It is so clear
    that this is not what this is actually about. Dr. Morgan, I am
    so glad that you are here, and I thank you so much for your
    time.
        Can you take us through the crux of what it is that we are
    supposed to be doing here, which is unpacking all of this?
        What are the things that are driving these higher costs in
    education?
        Dr. Morgan. Yes. Thank you for the question. It differs
    really by sector. There are a lot of varied factors that go
    into college costs.
        It really differs by the type of institution and the type
    of business model. So, when we take a look at a for-profit
    college, they are out to maximize their profit.
        The cost of providing the education is actually quite low
    and doesn't really drive the tuition prices. Their cost of
    marketing is quite high because they are trying to bring people
    in the door.
        When we think about State institutions and community
    colleges that are educating the majority of students who go to
    college in this country, studies have shown that the thing that
    is really driving their costs or the cost of tuition is State
    appropriations.
        That is why I have been quite focused on what Federal and
    State aid, and local aid as well, is going to these colleges
    and how what we do at the Federal level impacts those State
    budgets. Because we are going to see a squeeze on the State
    budgets that increase the price of tuition.
        What we have seen in the past is it takes a really long
    time to unwind that, even if we are looking at something that
    only affects a given year.
        Ms. Balint. What you are saying is true that if we are not
    investing in the institutions that most of our students go to,
    we are compounding the problem.
        Dr. Morgan. That is right.
        Ms. Balint. I really appreciate that. When we are talking
    about the affordability problem, are we talking about all
    institutions of higher education in the United States? Or is it
    just the Ivies?
        Dr. Morgan. There is a broad swath of colleges where the
    tuition is quite high and where they are using these opaque
    discounting models to get to a net price.
        There are a lot of colleges in this country that have held
    their costs quite low, despite weathering the storms of State
    budgets and cuts to Federal aid, and are really doing their
    best to provide an education at a transparent price to people
    where they can come out with as little debt as possible.
        I do think one thing to think about with that group of
    institutions and that group of students is how the costs in the
    rest of those students' lives have gone up.
        Ms. Balint. That is right.
        Dr. Morgan. For community college students in particular,
    they are going to be affected by cuts to things like SNAP. They
    are also affected by the impact of things like the tariffs, and
    the cost of living increases that this is having for families.
        So, for them, the whole package and their indebtedness to
    achieve an education is going to be higher because of all the
    rising costs that we are seeing right now.
        Ms. Balint. I really appreciate that. It is a complicated
    problem. It requires a seriousness of purpose and not some sham
    hearing.
        My Republican colleagues are not here to seriously
    investigate the problem of college affordability. They are here
    to advance Donald Trump's culture war against people and
    institutions that he doesn't like, and to go after anyone who
    remotely disagrees with him.
        He wants to continue to silence the opposition. The reason
    I know this is because my Republican colleagues, every single
    one of them across the aisle here voted to eliminate or reduce
    student aid, increase monthly student loan payments, and drive
    students to take out predatory private loans.
        This hearing once again, which we have seen over and over
    again in this Committee, is to do the President's dirty work.
    We have real work that we should be doing to support our
    students, but we are preoccupied with going after the
    President's supposed political enemies.
        It is a shame, and it is a disservice to our students
    across this country. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman yields back. The
    gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I yield my five minutes to Mr.
    Nehls from Texas.
        Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Ms. Hageman. Thank you for our
    witnesses taking the time to be here. As we have already
    discussed, the tuition rates at self-proclaimed elite
    universities have ballooned over the years due to longstanding
    collusion between them, longstanding collusion.
        This has allowed these schools to accumulate the kind of
    severe administrative bloat rarely seen outside of our own
    Federal Government.
        As Dr. Cooper testified, Ivy League Universities average
    one noninstructional staff per two students. How do you like
    that ratio?
        Yet, the average private university gets by with one third,
    the administrative staff. Much like we see in the Federal
    Government at some point bureaucracies, they get so big, fat
    and bloated that they serve no real purpose other than to
    justify their own existence.
        If these elite universities have one administrative
    employee for every two students, then what exactly are they
    employed to do?
        Well, one of our witnesses, Mr. Alex Shieh, decided to ask.
    Great question, Alex. Pursuant to his work as a student
    journalist, investigating administrative bloat at Brown, Mr.
    Shieh emailed all 3,805 nonfaculty employees of the university
    to inquire about what their job entailed. Right?
        Rather than simply respond to the inquiry, Brown chose to
    initiate disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Shieh. I was so
    appalled when I heard about this that I wrote a letter to Brown
    urging them to reverse course.
        I believe our fearless leader, Chair Jordan in the
    Committee, they wrote a letter and Brown reversed course. I am
    glad they did.
        It is one thing to create a vast, useless administrative
    bureaucracy to justify an exorbitant tuition rate of $93,000.
    To punish a student journalist for daring to ask a question
    about it, is unacceptable.
        Mr. Shieh, what first prompted you to make the inquiry?
        Mr. Shieh. That is an excellent question. Brown has a $46
    million budget shortfall, even while charging students the
    price of a luxury car. It doesn't seem like they want to cut
    any administrators. They have hiring freezes, but they are not
    willing to cut any jobs.
        I thought this was something that needed to be looked into.
        Mr. Nehls. Why do you think the employees that you emailed
    didn't answer your questions, many of them didn't respond?
        Mr. Shieh. Well, some of them answered. The ones who
    answered seemed to have pretty useful jobs. I guess we can
    maybe infer that the ones who didn't have jobs that are not so
    important.
        Mr. Nehls. The ones that didn't were too embarrassed. They
    were too embarrassed; they weren't going to respond to you.
        Why do you think schools like Brown might be more frugal in
    administrative spending if they had to pay the same 21 percent
    tax rate on their endowment profits as corporations?
        Mr. Shieh. Certainly, when you have to pay higher taxes,
    there is less money floating around, and you got to tighten the
    budget.
        Mr. Nehls. Now, that is beautiful. We put it in
    reconciliation now for these universities. It was 1.4, now it
    is going to go to 21 percent. Twenty-one percent, I am so
    excited that this legislation was in our reconciliation.
        How about you, Dr. Cooper, what do you think?
        Mr. Cooper. I think that the 21 percent tax on endowments
    will probably induce some belt tightening among these Ivy
    League institutions.
        I would also note that the taxes are structured such that
    if you expand your enrollment, you face a lower tax rate. That
    might be an inducement that some of these colleges need to
    actually admit more qualified students from middle income
    backgrounds.
        Mr. Nehls. Well, let me be clear, we are not actually
    taxing the endowment itself. It is the net profits, the
    earnings on their investments. We are expecting $7-$10 billion
    annually, $7-$10 billion is a big deal.
        Mr. Cooper, the average four-year private university costs
    around $35,000 per student, while the Ivy Leagues average
    $126,000. To what degree is administrative bloat attributed to
    this?
        Mr. Cooper. I can't imagine that most of that extra
    $126,000 in spending per student is really going to benefit
    students. What we see is much higher administrator to student
    ratios at Ivy League institutions than other private colleges.
        Mr. Nehls. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hageman. Mr. Chair, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back and the
    gentlewoman from Wyoming's time is yielded back. I now
    recognize the gentleman from Illinois for five minutes.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This hearing highlights a
    real problem, the crisis of affordability in higher education.
        Instead of focusing on systemic issues and solutions,
    Republicans have chosen a narrow and misleading target, the Ivy
    League, which enrolls less than one percent, half of one
    percent of all undergraduate students.
        It has been stated before, rising costs are not unique to
    the Ivy League. Over the last two decades, tuition and fees at
    private and public universities have increased by over 100
    percent.
        This problem isn't limited to antitrust violations by the
    Ivy League. It is a problem that affects working families,
    regardless of which school students attend.
        This problem is rooted in the commodification of education.
    Many schools have become real estate trust and hedge funds that
    treat education as an afterthought.
        They gained the ranking system by jacking up tuition,
    offering discounts in the form of financial aid, knowing that
    they can exploit the student loan program and load their
    students with debt. This model has been a disaster for students
    and for our economy.
        Higher education is becoming more essential and more
    unafford-
    able. Over 40 million people hold nearly $2 trillion in debt.
    The Black and Latino students, immigrant students, and first-
    generation students in particular, are being priced out of
    opportunity.
        In addition to antitrust enforcement, Congress must act,
    and we should consider policy options like tuition free public
    college, caps on tuition increases, increased need-based aid
    reforms to the student loan system, and support for trade and
    vocational schools. Not everyone needs to go to college.
        If Republicans were serious about affordability, we would
    see policy solutions. We don't see that. Instead, we see
    culture wars. Let's talk about what they actually do.
        Ms. Morgan, thank you for being here. Let me ask you a
    simple yes or no question. Does gutting the Department of
    Education lower tuition costs?
        Dr. Morgan. It does not.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Does cutting research funding for
    universities lower tuition costs?
        Dr. Morgan. It does not.
        Mr. Garcia. Does funding financial aid, does cutting
    financial aid programs and student debt relief lower tuition
    costs?
        Dr. Morgan. It definitely does not.
        Mr. Garcia. Does suppressing free speech and enforcing a
    Trump approved ideology lower tuition costs?
        Dr. Morgan. It does not.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you. As usual, Republicans are pretending
    to be firefighters when they are actually arsonists. We need to
    address the cost of higher education. Nothing in their cruel
    Reconciliation Bill does that.
        This hearing is just a hypocritical distraction.
    Republicans fight culture wars, they manufacture outrage, and
    funnel taxpayer dollars to billionaires and to ICE, while
    defunding higher education, programs that help working class
    students, those that I represent in Congress, and other vital
    resources for our communities.
        Working families and our communities deserve better. Thank
    you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman
    from North Carolina is now recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of you
    that are on the panel today for your testimony. I have been in
    and out of other Committee meetings, but I did have the
    privilege of reading your written testimoneys in advance.
        I do want to just ask you a couple of questions. For
    decades, elite universities were protected by the antitrust
    exemption under the understanding that they were going to
    provide this need blind financial aid, which they arguably are
    not.
        Mr. Martin, I want to go to you first. In your view, did
    the exemption do anything meaningful to bring down colleges'
    costs to make or make colleges expense more accessible?
        Mr. Martin. I have not studied that Congressman. I am aware
    of nothing.
        Mr. Harris. OK. We really have seen what 30 years of
    colluding about the financial aid formulas did to college
    affordability and accessibility. The exemption expired in 2022.
        So, my question again, Mr. Martin, would be to you, if we
    want students to be offered the best college experience at the
    lowest possible price, should Congress enact another antitrust
    exemption like Section 568, or force the schools to compete
    against one another?
        Mr. Martin. As an antitrust lawyer, Congressman, the free
    market is generally the best tool for solving problems of
    prices.
        Mr. Harris. Well, and I too, I believe that competition
    would play a role in bringing down college costs. We have data
    from the last 30 years that the antitrust exemption only
    succeeded in making our elite institutions more elite and
    further removed the needs of everyday Americans. Thank you.
    Thank you for your response.
        I want to go to Mr. Shieh. Mr. Shieh, you caused quite a
    stir with your email to Brown's employees. Your efforts to
    shine a light on Brown University's excess mirror our fight in
    Congress to cut wasteful spending as we are dealing with it day
    in and day out.
        Can you, I want to give you a chance to explain your
    motivation for shining a light on what you describe as
    administrative bloat.
        Mr. Shieh. Exactly. Well, I think the root of the problem
    is that Brown is just so darn unaffordable for our students
    across the country. That is why Brown has the richest median
    income of all the Ivy League schools.
        Like I said, half of the Brown student body is from the top
    five percent of Americans. I just think that is wrong. I think
    that is morally wrong, because the Ivy League is supposed to be
    a ladder to the American dream.
        We are pulling up the ladder so that only rich kids can
    access it. I think that is wrong.
        Mr. Harris. I noticed in your written testimony that you
    pointed out there is roughly a ratio of one administrator for
    every two students. I have got to ask you, is this necessary
    for Brown students to obtain a degree?
        Mr. Shieh. Certainly not. We have seen that in the past,
    Brown didn't have this ratio, and it has functioned fine for
    hundreds of years.
        Across the pond, Oxford and Cambridge don't have that many
    administrators and they function fine. Certainly, all these
    administrators are not necessary.
        Mr. Harris. I would say, does this number of administrators
    meaningfully impact on the overall experience of Brown
    students?
        Mr. Shieh. Certainly not. They might even detract from it,
    because when budget cuts need to be made, the enormous
    administrative bloat means that, and their unwillingness to
    reduce it means that the costs have to be cut somewhere else.
        Mr. Harris. Right. So, which leads, you almost answered my
    other question, is how could cutting some of the bloat benefit
    the consumer that is looking to come to Brown?
        Mr. Shieh. Well, absolutely. Like dorms flood, the food is
    unappetizingly bad, and the quality just keeps getting worse.
        They are reducing red meat from all the dining halls. They
    say it is about the environment, but it is really about the
    cost. By reducing administrative bloat, we definitely could see
    some improvements in the student experience.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you. Dr. Cooper, let me ask you, you said
    in your written testimony that,

            The surplus revenues that Ivy League institutions currently
            enjoy fuel administrative bloat, but they could instead be used
            to create more seats for qualified applicants.

        Can you explain the benefits for our entire Nation that
    could come from increased enrollment at these elite
    institutions?
        Mr. Cooper. Absolutely. Right now, if you look at elite
    institutions' graduates, they are vastly over-represented in
    the elites of business, politics, and media.
        If we were to expand Ivy League undergraduate colleges to
    more students that would enable more students to get their foot
    in the door for this pipeline, and enable a greater diversity
    of folks in those elite positions.
        I would love to see Ivy League institutions use their
    endowments and use all the money they are currently spending on
    administration to expand and create opportunities for more of
    those students.
        Mr. Harris. Well, thank you. Thank you to all of you for
    shining the light that you are shining today. Mr. Chair, with
    that, I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. Without
    objection, I ask unanimous consents to enter into the record
    the following: A press release from the Department of Justice
    titled, ``Consent Decree Settles Charge of Conspiracy to
    Restrain Price Competition on Financial Aid Against Major
    Universities.''
        An article by Sahaj Sharda titled, ``How to Crush the Ivy
    League Cartel.''
        Finally, document Number 753-18, filed in the case of Henry
    v. Brown University, on December 16, 2024.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. We now recognize the gentleman from Georgia
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's be clear,
    everybody, there is no 568 antitrust exemption thanks to the
    Biden Administration.
        As far as Mr. Shieh's testimony is concerned, it is, Brown
    did not discipline Mr. Shieh, contrary to his report. Also, Mr.
    Shieh's numbers in terms of administration staff for Brown
    University are incorrect.
        I am surprised that you would pull up the ladder for
    students who are going to regular universities and colleges to
    prevent them from getting financial aid. That is crazy.
        At any rate, Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican
    supporters in Congress are attacking our elite institutions of
    higher learning, because these institutions and others produce
    the critical thinkers who stand opposed to the global trend
    toward authori-tarianism and dictatorship, which Donald Trump
    and MAGA represent.
        They say this hearing is about eight Ivy League
    institutions and the cost of higher education, but that is just
    a facade. This is really about Trump's war on facts, debate,
    and truth.
        This is Trump's attack on academia, which comes straight
    out of the authoritarian playbook. Universities are full of
    smart, young, engaged people, and the institutions are
    committed to freedom of inquiry and diversity of thought.
        Universities provide independent sources of information and
    accountability. Indeed, individuals with higher levels of
    education are less likely to be tricked by authoritarian
    appeals.
        Any autocrat or dictator who wants to exercise limitless,
    arbitrary power, sees independent institutions of higher
    education as a threat. After all, Donald Trump can't replace
    our democracy with a dictatorial regime if the people are smart
    enough to recognize that he is a threat to freedom, liberty,
    and justice, which are democracy guarantees.
        Dr. Morgan, I believe that academia and it is inextricably
    tied to our democracy and to our liberty. Can you talk about
    why higher education is important for the protection of freedom
    and democracy?
        Dr. Morgan. Absolutely. First, our institutions of higher
    learning are places where people come together and learn, and
    have to be in the same place as people with different opinions.
        It really promotes democratic values from the start. To
    your point, universities can also be a place of free inquiry
    that can result in information that can oppose or point out
    flaws in larger societal trends or political trends.
        They can be really important voices in our societies. They
    are also places that produce research that can help us better
    understand what is happening in the world around us, including
    what is happening, the kind of effects of the negative changes
    that a Presidential administration might be putting in place.
        They are incredibly important to our democracy and to our
    society.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you. As a lawyer, I have watched with
    horror as a number of law firms bent a knee and succumbed to
    Donald Trump's unlawful pressure campaign.
        I am proud of the brave firms that chose to stand up for
    the rule of law. Now, as Trump goes after the universities, I
    am equally concerned.
        In March, Columbia University caved to Trump's demands when
    the administration threatened to yank away $400 million in
    Federal funding. Yet, more recently, Harvard is showing
    backbone and rejecting Trump's demands.
        Dr. Morgan, why is it important that universities stand up
    against the administration's attacks and conversely, what would
    happen if universities succumbed and started towing the line
    for this administration?
        Dr. Morgan. Yes. I think it is incredibly important that
    universities follow the law, but do not submit to demands that
    have nothing to do with their legal requirements.
        You can see in the attacks on Harvard, and the kind of
    proposed solutions from the Trump Administration that they are
    looking to really control the minutia of the decisions at those
    colleges. That is not an appropriate role for the Federal
    Government to take.
        The other thing that is important to understand here, is
    that other universities are going to take their cues from what
    these much better resourced institutions are able to do in
    terms of standing up to the administration.
        It is really important those universities that have the
    resources to do so to take a stand.
        Mr. Johnson. So, attacking elite institutions is a canary
    in the coal mine.
        Dr. Morgan. That is right.
        Mr. Johnson. All institutions of higher learning are under
    attack.
        Dr. Morgan. That is right.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Jordan for five minutes.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Shieh, what did you
    say tuition was again at Brown, annual tuition?
        Mr. Shieh. It is $93,064 in direct costs.
        Chair Jordan. The $93,000 doesn't count the room and board,
    books, and everything. That is just tuition, right?
        Mr. Shieh. No. That is including room and board.
        Chair Jordan. That is everything? OK, $93,000. How many
    students do you say again, was at Brown, over 7,000 you said?
        Mr. Shieh. Seven thousand.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. That is a lot of money coming in. It
    could be some grants; it could be some loans or whatever.
        The $93,000  7, it is like $700 million coming
    into Brown every year. You asked the fundamental question, sort
    of a simple question. You asked the question, where the heck is
    all the money going, right?
        You said, ``Maybe I will check the administrators. How many
    administrators are they having?'' You said, I think the number
    you said was 3,805, is that right?
        Mr. Shieh. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. Then, you sent a letter to these guys asking
    another fundamental question, what do you do all day?
        What was the response you said? Most of them didn't get
    back with you?
        Mr. Shieh. Most of them didn't respond. We were hit with
    disciplinary charges.
        Chair Jordan. The administrators couldn't respond to a
    simple question, you are taking in $700 million a year. What
    the heck are you 3,800 administrators doing every day?
        The administrators didn't respond, but the administration
    came after you. Is that right?
        Mr. Shieh. That is right. When you investigate the
    administration, it turns out they investigated you back.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. It was interesting to me, because the
    Ranking Member of the Full Committee and the Ranking Member of
    the Subcommittee talked about academic freedom and the First
    Amendment.
        You were asking these questions on behalf of a student news
    publication, right?
        Mr. Shieh. Right.
        Chair Jordan. Was it Brown, what is the name of your paper,
    The Brown Spectator?
        Mr. Shieh. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. They come after you. Why do you think they
    did that? Why did they come after--well, first, what did they
    come after you about? What did you allegedly do wrong?
        Mr. Shieh. Well, first it was emotional and psychological
    harm, invasion of privacy, and misrepresentation. Then, they
    decided to charge me with violating the technology policy.
        Chair Jordan. You are asking someone how they spend your
    money is emotional harm? That is what they alleged?
        Mr. Shieh. Apparently.
        Chair Jordan. Then, what happened in the investigation?
        Mr. Shieh. Well, then they escalated it. They then charged
    the entire Board of Directors of The Brown Spectator for
    violating Brown's trademark, because our publication is named
    The Brown Spectator, which is just a completely bogus claim.
        Chair Jordan. Are there other newspapers at Brown that use
    Brown in the name of their paper?
        Mr. Shieh. Yes. Our other newspaper is the Brown Daily
    Herald.
        Chair Jordan. Probably in the entire history of the
    university, there has been some kind of Brown publication,
    right?
        Mr. Shieh. Certainly.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. That is just ridiculous. Why do you
    really think they did it? Why did they really come after you?
        Mr. Shieh. I think that they were upset that we unveiled
    the rot that was going on, all these administrators with pretty
    useless jobs.
        Chair Jordan. That is certainly one reason they were mad at
    you. It is probably more, I think they were trying to make sure
    no one else would do it in the future.
        Mr. Shieh. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. That is always the way it works. The Left
    comes after people, they want to chill speech so it doesn't
    happen again. Do you think that was part of their motivation?
        Mr. Shieh. I think that certainly was true. It backfired
    terribly.
        Chair Jordan. It sure did. It sure did, because you are
    brave enough to keep talking. You can come here and testify.
    So, God bless you for doing that.
        Now, you can have, I will direct this to you, Mr. Martin,
    you can have a bloated bureaucracy when you are colluding on
    price and making sure you are not competing on price with other
    similarly situated institutions.
        Is that right, Mr. Martin?
        Mr. Martin. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. You are not supposed to do that, are you,
    according to the law? Is that right Mr. Martin?
        Mr. Martin. To collude on price? It is per se unlawful.
        Chair Jordan. It is per se unlawful. You can also have
    bloated bureaucracy when you collude on price and you limit
    output, you limit class size.
        Is that right, Mr. Martin?
        Mr. Martin. That is correct.
        Chair Jordan. Do you think that is going on at these--oh,
    there is a third one.
        You can also do all this if you engage in perfect price
    discrimination, where you get all this information on the
    student and their families, what they make, where it goes, what
    they owe, what their retirement is, all this information, and
    you can say that student can pay this amount and you will take
    it right to the edge where they can pay and get perfect price
    discrimination.
        So, when you do those three things, you can afford to have
    3,805 administrators for 7,000 students. Is that right Mr.
    Martin?
        Mr. Martin. You make an excellent point. The more perfect
    the information, the more perfect the collusion can be,
    algorithmically or otherwise.
        Chair Jordan. Of course, That is exactly what is going on.
    Is that right, Dr. Cooper?
        Mr. Cooper. The evidence is certainly consistent with that,
    yes.
        Chair Jordan. That is what the evidence shows. Yet, the
    other side says, oh, how dare Mr. Fitzgerald have this hearing.
    You got to be kidding me.
        They tried to chill the speech of a news publication at the
    university, for a student they are supposed to be serving,
    asking a simple and fundamental question. They want to chill
    that because they don't want anyone to look under the covers
    and see that they are colluding on price, they are limiting
    output, and they are doing perfect price discrimination.
        Imagine that. Imagine that. We are not supposed to have a
    hearing. Holy cow. I want to thank the Chair for doing the
    hearing.
        I want to thank all of you for testifying. Mr. Shieh, thank
    you for stepping forward and letting the country know what is
    going on at these elite universities.
        Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield for a quick question?
        Chair Jordan. I yield back to the Chair. I will yield. You
    have got a few.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, I just wonder if your feelings are the
    same about the attacks on a private student publication called
    the Harvard Law Review taking place by the Trump Administration
    right now?
        Chair Jordan. Well, I think the Chair--or the Ranking
    Member knows that you and I have been strong defenders of the
    press. We have co-sponsored together the PRESS Act, defending
    the press. I will continue to do that.
        Mr. Raskin. Very good.
        Chair Jordan. I am focused on the situation in front of us
    today and Mr. Shieh at Brown University.
        Mr. Raskin. I am with you. Hold the thought. More power to
    the free press at Brown and at Harvard.
        Chair Jordan. God bless America.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman's time has expired. That
    concludes today's hearing. We want to thank our witnesses.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Nadler has a UC request.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for unanimous
    consent to enter into the record an article entitled, ``Ivy
    League School's Financial Aid,'' from the Ivy Coach Daily. It
    says, moreover, while the sticker price at the Ivy League
    schools is high, about $90,000 per year, roughly half of the
    students receive financial aid with average awards covering
    two-thirds or more of the cost.
        The vast majority of students from Ivy League schools
    graduate with no loans. Half of the Ivy League schools offer a
    completely free education to families whose income is $75,000
    or less.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. That is the title or the whole article?
        Mr. Nadler. That is the whole article.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes. Without objection.
        Mr. Nadler. I have a second unanimous consent request that
    is shorter. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
    and article from Chicago Booth Review titled, ``Who's at Fault
    For Student Loan Defaults,'' that argues that this article
    reviews, researches, and analyzes student loan defaults and
    finds that for-profit colleges, half of the student loan
    defaults are from programs that only enroll 10 percent of U.S.
    students. Furthermore, the review argues that default rates are
    not being driven by tuition costs.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. That concludes today's hearing. I want to
    thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee today.
        Without objection, all the Members will have five
    legislative days to submit additional written questions for the
    witnesses and additional materials for the record. Without
    objection, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform,
    and Antitrust can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/
    Committee/
    Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118342.

                                     [all]