With a Continuing Resolution Likely, We Take a Look At the House & Senate FY26 Appropriations Proposals & House Education Committee’s Focus On College Cost
Overview
Over the past two weeks, the overriding issues on Capitol Hill have been focused on fiscal policy and efforts in both the House and Senate to move forward on passed of the twelve annual appropriations bills before fiscal year 2025 ends on September 30, 2025. Unfortunately, as of this morning only three of the twelve bills have been passed in both the full House and Senate (a consolidated bill including Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and Legislative Branch) while the other nine are stalled somewhere in the process – including the Labor, Health and Human Service and Education bill which has been passed out of both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and is awaiting full House and Senate floor consideration.
Given the fact that none of the legislation has been enacted and that most are still far from completion, Congress is once again deliberating of the terms of a continuing resolution to fund the federal government for a finite period of time as they continue to work towards completion of the bills. On Tuesday the House passed H.R. – The Continuing Appropriations and Extension Act, a continuing resolution that essentially continues to fund the government at fiscal year 2025 levels with some flexibility until November 21, 2025 or until the enactment of the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill.
The Senate must now consider the House CR bill or develop their own version and send it back to the House for reconsideration. CSPEN will provide an update on the status of these negotiations and a details summary of the House and Senate higher education proposals contained in the Committee passed bills.
In other Congressional news, on Tuesday, September 16th The House Subcommittee on Higher Education & Workforce Development held a hearing entitled, “No More Surprises: Reforming College Pricing for Students and Families.” As noted in his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT) characterized the decision-making process this way:
“I want to thank our witnesses for joining us to shine a light on how students and families navigate one of the most important, and most confusing, financial decisions they will ever face: choosing and paying for college.
The process of determining the true cost of college is clouded in mystery. Colleges and universities routinely advertise prices that bear little resemblance to what families ultimately pay. Too often, aid packages are filled with unclear or deceptive figures.
This is not how major financial decisions are made in other parts of our economy. When you buy a home, federal law requires clear disclosures so you know exactly what you will owe. When you purchase a car, consumer protections guard against deceptive pricing. Yet when it comes to a college degree, an investment that can rival or exceed the cost of a home, students are left in the dark”
Followed by Ranking Member Alma Adams (D-NC) who opined:
“As the cost of college continues to rise, students and families also struggle to understand the true cost of attendance and how much they can expect to spend out-of-pocket on higher education. Too often, families are left to navigate a complex and confusing system of fees, tuition rates, and financial aid options without clear guidance. This can lead to ‘sticker shock’ as families grapple with the total cost of a college education. I spent forty years on a college campus, and I understand what students and families go through.
“In my home state of North Carolina, the North Carolina College Connect program removes barriers and provides direct pathways for high school students to apply for and attend college. Programs like North Carolina College Connect cut through much of the bureaucratic red tape that comes with applying for college and help students and families understand the process.
“But there is much more to be done. Greater price transparency is essential to ensuring that students and families can make informed decisions about their future. Institutions of higher education can and must do more to be more transparent with students and their families about the cost of attendance and about their student aid options.
“That being said, more transparency will not address many of the root causes of the rising cost of college. Right now, our country is facing a college affordability crisis that has been made exponentially worse by the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans.”
Following the Chairman and Ranking Member’s opening statements, a panel of four witnesses then provided testimony expressing their views on topic. Here are key excerpts from each of their testimony.
Justin Draeger, Senior Vice President, Affordability, Strada Education Foundation
College pricing today is confusing and opaque. Families face two prices: the sticker price — the published tuition and fees — and the net price — what they actually pay after aid and discounts. Frustrated families consistently ask for three things: an all-in price as early as possible, guarantees that it won’t change, and a straightforward sense of return on their investment. These are tall orders, but not impossible. There are concrete steps we can take, starting with clearer communication, simpler systems, and incentives that reward transparency rather than complexity.0.
Lee S. Wishing, III, VP for Student Recruitment/CMO, Grove City College
“Thank you for the opportunity to testify on “unfunded discounting” – a misleading tuition pricing practice widely used by colleges and universities that benefits institutions at the expense of students and parents, who frequently do not understand the intentional vagaries of college pricing.
This practice puts students and families at risk of overpayment and excessive debt.”
Amy Laitinen, Senior Director of Higher Education, New America
“The federal government approves nearly 6,000 institutions of higher education so that students can attend using more than $130 billion a year in federal investment in financial aid to help students go to college. With that investment comes the responsibility to ensure students get genuine value for their time, money, and trust.
Students deserve a system that allows them to understand and compare their college costs, and ensures higher education is affordable even for low- and middle-income students. They deserve accurate information about program outcomes and protection from chronically poor-performing institutions and programs.”
Dr. Andrew Gillen, Research Fellow, Cato Institute
“Today’s topic on price transparency in higher education is an excellent one, as higher education tends to have both high and uncertain pricing, a particularly brutal combination for students and parents. One promising policy that could help address these problems is price transparency.
There has been momentum around three price transparency initiatives in higher education. The first concerns confusing financial aid terminology. Even aid that is financed entirely by the federal government goes by a bewildering array of confusing names. For example, a 2018 study by a team of researchers at New America found that the most common type of federal loan went by 136 different names in financial aid award letters sent by colleges, “including 24 that did not include the word ‘loan. Eliminating this unnecessary source of confusion is probably the best example of low-hanging fruit in higher education policy right now.
The second price transparency initiative with momentum is ensuring that students and parents have an accurate sense of what they will really pay for college, the net price, which is the published price minus any grant aid that does not need to be paid back. While Congress has required every college to post a net price calculator for years now, this has not had the desired effect, in part because the calculations use different formulas and are typically not comparable across colleges. Remedying this problem by supplementing each college’s calculations with one using a universal formula would allow for comparisons across colleges.
The third and most recent price transparency initiative seek to provide more certainty about price over the course of several years. These typically take the form a price guarantee that locks in (maximum) prices for a predetermined number of years. This ensures that students and parents will know how much they’ll need to pay over the course of their studies. Some states like Ohio and North Carolina have already passed legislation that mandates this type of price transparency. For example,
* Ohio State University’s guaranteed price covers tuition and fees for four years.
* Ohio University’s guarantee covers tuition and fees, meal plans, and residence halls for four years.
* The University of Cincinnati’s guarantee locks in all costs for up to four or five years depending on the length of the program.
* The University of North Carolina system fixes tuition for four years for new students.
Unfortunately, there isn’t much analysis of the impacts of these programs yet, but they do serve as a proof of concept and provide a baseline from which to consider changes.”
What’s Next
Join us this afternoon as CSPEN provides more details on these important legislative issues, provides breaking news on a key amendment that is being developed for consideration in the House Appropriations bill, and more.
