U.S. Congress
Here's a look at documents from all members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate
Featured Stories
CPC Leaders Introduce War Powers Resolution to End Unauthorized Hostilities in Venezuela
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The Congressional Progressive Caucus issued the following news release on Sept. 24, 2025:* * *
CPC Leaders Introduce War Powers Resolution to End Unauthorized Hostilities in Venezuela
Today, Deputy Chair of the Progressive Caucus Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN-05) introduced a War Powers Resolution to terminate unauthorized U.S military hostilities against Venezuela and transnational criminal organizations that the Trump administration has unilaterally designated as foreign terrorist organizations. The resolution follows the administration's repeated strikes on vessels in the southern ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The Congressional Progressive Caucus issued the following news release on Sept. 24, 2025: * * * CPC Leaders Introduce War Powers Resolution to End Unauthorized Hostilities in Venezuela Today, Deputy Chair of the Progressive Caucus Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN-05) introduced a War Powers Resolution to terminate unauthorized U.S military hostilities against Venezuela and transnational criminal organizations that the Trump administration has unilaterally designated as foreign terrorist organizations. The resolution follows the administration's repeated strikes on vessels in the southernCaribbean carried out without congressional authorization or clear legal justification.
Omar, who serves as Chair of CPC's Peace & Security Taskforce, was joined by CPC Chair Rep. Greg Casar (TX-35) and CPC Whip Rep. Jesus "Chuy" Garcia (IL-04). CPC Member and Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee Rep. Jim McGovern (MA-02) joined as an original cosponsor.
"There was no legal justification for the Trump Administration's military escalation in the Caribbean," said Rep. Ilhan Omar, Deputy Chair of the Progressive Caucus. "It was not self-defense or authorized by Congress. That is why I am introducing a resolution to terminate hostilities against Venezuela, and against the transnational criminal organizations that the Administration has designated as terrorists this year. All of us should agree that the separation of powers is crucial to our democracy, and that only Congress has the power to declare war."
"Donald Trump cannot be allowed to drag the United States into another endless war with his reckless actions," said Rep. Greg Casar, Chair of the Progressive Caucus. "It is illegal for the president to take the country to war without consulting the people's representatives, and Congress must vote now to stop Trump from putting us at further risk."
"The extrajudicial strike against a vessel in the Caribbean Sea is only the most recent of Trump's reckless, deadly, and illegal military actions. Now, he's lawlessly threatening a region already profoundly impacted by the destabilization of U.S. actions," said Rep. Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, the Whip of the Progressive Caucus. "With this War Powers Resolution, we emphasize the total illegality of his action, and--consistent with overwhelming public opposition to forever war--reclaim Congress' sole power to authorize military action."
"The people that I represent are sick and tired of this country being dragged into one endless war after another," said Rep. Jim McGovern. "Trump's reckless, unlawful, and extrajudicial strikes were in flagrant violation of both international and U.S. law. And his military escalation in the Caribbean--a region already destabilized by decades of U.S. intervention--threatens to release even more chaos and violence at our doorstep. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and we must stand up for the constitutional separation of powers before it is too late."
The War Powers Resolution directs the President to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against Venezuela and against transnational criminal organizations unless explicitly authorized by Congress. It makes clear that the President retains the ability to respond to sudden attacks or imminent threats, but stresses that the trafficking of illegal drugs does not itself constitute an armed attack.
For decades, successive administrations of both parties have expanded presidential war powers while Congress has abdicated its constitutional role. Rep. Omar's resolution reasserts Article I authority, making clear that neither the 2001 nor the 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force provide legal cover for new conflicts in Latin America. It underscores that a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation, as defined by U.S. law, does not authorize the use of military force, contrary to recent claims from the Trump Administration and some Members of Congress.
"The Trump administration has appointed itself judge, jury, and executioner, in a series of blatantly illegal strikes," said Sara Haghdoosti, Executive Director of Win Without War. "People struggling through the overdose crisis need healthcare, not warfare. We're proud to support Representative Omar's resolution to stop these strikes and we urge her colleagues to join her."
"We abhor the recent unlawful strikes on Venezuelan boats, which have killed more than a dozen people," said Lauren Brownlee, the Friends Committee on National Legislation's Deputy General Secretary. "As Quakers, we share the conviction that all creation has worth and dignity. Those suspected of crimes deserve due process, not summary execution. We are proud to support Congresswoman Omar's War Powers Resolution to end these horrific attacks."
"It could not be more clear that Americans across the political spectrum do not want to fight and fund another war," said Dylan Williams, Vice President of Center for International Policy Advocacy. "Trump's illegal, extra-judicial killings off the coast of Venezuela are an unauthorized and unconstitutional use of military force that put our servicemembers at risk. Lawmakers have a duty to stand up for their voters and their prerogatives to prevent another unnecessary and costly war of choice."
"The President is claiming the authority to kill people outside of armed conflict and without due process," said Annie Shiel, US Director for the Center for Civilians in Conflict. "The recent airstrikes in the Caribbean are unlawful executions during peacetime, not war. Rep. Omar's leadership in forcing an end to these unlawful strikes is sorely needed. Everyone else in the House should join her."
"The Trump administration appears intent on dragging the United States into war with Venezuela. Between the extrajudicial killings of Venezuelan citizens, the threat of drone strikes on Venezuelan soil, and the amassing of military equipment in the region, Trump has given lie to his claims of being 'anti-war' and aligned himself decisively with the neoconservative camp," said Alex Main, Director of International Policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "This follows years of efforts to enact regime change in Venezuela by other means, including through broad economic sanctions that have devastated the Venezuelan economy and fueled a humanitarian crisis, triggering the migration of millions of Venezuelans. We must be clear: a war with Venezuela would be catastrophic for both the people of Venezuela and the United States, while doing nothing to solve the drug crisis in our nation."
"The American people, across the political spectrum, don't want their tax dollars funding unauthorized regime change wars overseas," said Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy. "Americans are grateful to Rep. Omar and others in Congress who insist on upholding the Constitution -- war must be authorized by Congress after a debate and vote, not unilaterally dictated by the same neocon zealots responsible for peddling one disastrous regime change after another."
Read the resolution here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y_GV7b7SEdP8-1oUw_levk0Qoudc782h/view?usp=sharing).
* * *
Original text here: https://progressives.house.gov/press-releases?ID=1453726A-5C9C-4415-88A2-57507348057A
Crapo Announces Hearing on Taxation of Digital Assets
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following news release on Sept. 24, 2025:* * *
Crapo Announces Hearing on Taxation of Digital Assets
U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) announced the Committee will convene for a hearing entitled, "Examining the Taxation of Digital Assets" on Wednesday, October 1 at 10:00 AM.
Title: Examining the Taxation of Digital Assets
Witnesses:
* Jason Somensatto, Director of Policy, Coin Center, Washington, DC
* Andrea S. Kramer, Founding Member, ASKramer Law, LLC, Chicago, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued the following news release on Sept. 24, 2025: * * * Crapo Announces Hearing on Taxation of Digital Assets U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) announced the Committee will convene for a hearing entitled, "Examining the Taxation of Digital Assets" on Wednesday, October 1 at 10:00 AM. Title: Examining the Taxation of Digital Assets Witnesses: * Jason Somensatto, Director of Policy, Coin Center, Washington, DC * Andrea S. Kramer, Founding Member, ASKramer Law, LLC, Chicago,IL
* Lawrence Zlatkin, Vice President of Tax, Coinbase Global, Inc., New York, NY
* Annette Nellen, Chair, Digital Assets Tax Task Force, American Institute of CPAs, Durham, NC
Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2025
Time: 10:00 AM ET
Location: 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Witness testimony, opening statements and a live video of the hearing will be available on www.finance.senate.gov. An additional live video will be streamed on https://x.com/MikeCrapo.
Members of the press interested in covering this hearing in person should RSVP to the appropriate Senate press gallery.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/crapo-announces-hearing-on-taxation-of-digital-assets
Chair Cassidy Blasts NY Gov Kathy Hochul for Undermining Workers' Rights, Violating U.S. Constitution
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, issued the following news:* * *
Chair Cassidy Blasts NY Gov Kathy Hochul for Undermining Workers' Rights, Violating U.S. Constitution
U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, blasted New York Governor Kathy Hochul for her new policy that undermines workers' right to join a union if they choose.
According to federal law, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the sole authority to settle ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, issued the following news: * * * Chair Cassidy Blasts NY Gov Kathy Hochul for Undermining Workers' Rights, Violating U.S. Constitution U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, blasted New York Governor Kathy Hochul for her new policy that undermines workers' right to join a union if they choose. According to federal law, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the sole authority to settlelabor disputes and unfair labor practices covered under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This has been affirmed by multiple Supreme Court decisions.
Recently, Governor Hochul signed a law that allows the State of New York's Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to take over worker claims in NLRB's jurisdiction, a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. New York's law creates confusion as to which entity has authority over federal labor disputes, making it more difficult for workers to organize and file claims if their employer has infringed on their rights protected under the NLRA.
"President Trump and Secretary Chavez-DeRemer are committed to delivering the most pro-worker administration in history. As Chairman of the HELP Committee, I'm proud to stand with President Trump to put American workers first," said Dr. Cassidy. "It's unacceptable that Kathy Hochul and liberal New York Democrats are violating the Constitution to undermine workers' rights."
Read the full letter here or below.
Dear Governor Hochul,
As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), I am committed to ensuring that workers can rely on a predictable process when they are involved in an unfair labor practice dispute or want to organize to improve their working conditions.
You recently signed Senate Bill 8034A1, which expands the jurisdiction of the State of New York's Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to that of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 2 Infringing on NLRB's jurisdiction undermines processes enshrined in federal law that protect workers,3 and falsely suggests to workers that PERB decisions can provide a legal resolution. 4
I am concerned that Senate Bill 8034A will result in workers' good faith claims going unaddressed in the proper forum. The issue of the NLRB jurisdiction has been settled by the U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions: first, in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon5, and again in Wis. Dept. of Indus., Labor & Human Relations v. Gould, Inc.6 In addition to affirming the jurisdiction of the NLRB in any matter related to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Garmon Court found that the absence of an assertion of jurisdiction by the NLRB does not create a jurisdictional vacuum leaving states free to act. The Gould Court was clear: "states may not regulate activity that the NLRA protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits."7
Workers in New York, and across the United States, should be able to assert their rights without confusion or undue difficulty. They should not be expected to be labor law experts, parse jurisdictional questions, and file their grievances in every possible forum to preserve their claim. The practical impact of this law will be mistaken filings by well-meaning workers who desire to follow the law and orders from the PERB that imply a worker's issue has been resolved when, in reality, the correct agency to hear their claim is not aware the claim exists. This law accomplishes the opposite of its purported goal, which is to help workers. To that end, I request answers to the following questions by October 8, 2025:
Jurisdictional Basis
1. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon stated that the NLRB has jurisdiction "over the multitude of activities regulated by Sec. 7 and Sec. 8 of the National Labor Relations Act."8 In Wis. Dept. of Indus., Labor & Human Relations v. Gould, Inc., a unanimous Court stated that it is a "general rule" that "States may not regulate activity that the NLRA protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits."9
2. Given these decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, on what grounds does the State of New York believe S. 8034A provides certainty for workers regarding the permanent disposition of unfair labor practice disputes and certification of bargaining units?
3. How is S. 8034A not preempted by the NLRA?
4. In San Diego Unions v. Garmon, the Court stated that the failure of the NLRB to assert jurisdiction did not allow states "to regulate activities they would otherwise be precluded from regulating" and "to allow the States to control activities that are potentially subject to federal regulation involves too great a danger of conflict with national labor policy."
5. Why did the State of New York disregard Garmon's conclusions?
6. Does the State of New York believe S. 8034A operates outside of Garmon?
7. Was S. 8034A proposed and passed to challenge Garmon and seek its reversal?
8. What is the State of New York's definition of "successfully asserts jurisdiction" in the context of S. 8034A?
9. What agency creates this definition?
10. S. 8034A states that the act shall not apply to "employees where the national labor relations board successfully asserts jurisdiction over any employer, employees, trades, or industries pursuant to an order by the federal district court established under article three of the United States constitution."
11. Is it the State of New York's position that the NLRB must seek an order from a court established under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to successfully assert jurisdiction over each matter filed in the State of New York under S. 8034A?
12. What federal law or U.S. Supreme Court precedent does the State of New York rely on to support this position?
13. Public statements have cited the NLRB's inability to act due to a lack of quorum as a primary reason for S. 8034A. However, the NLRB continues to investigate charges and Acting General Counsel Bill Cowen recently issued a statement saying that the NLRB's "Regional Offices continue to process unfair labor practice and representation cases, and the Acting General Counsel has been delegated litigation authority that would normally be exercised by the Board."10 Please explain how these actions do not constitute the assertion of jurisdiction by the NLRB over matters covered by the NLRA.
14. At what point in the process does the State of New York recognize the NLRB taking actions that successfully assert jurisdiction?
15. Would the State of New York agree that the NLRB taking any of the actions following a "charge" in the Process for Unfair Labor Practices section or "filing a petition" with an NLRB Regional Office in the Representational Election Process section of the NLRB's website are examples of a successful assertion of jurisdiction by the NLRB?11
16. If not, why not? Please cite any applicable federal law or U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
17. Please describe how the State of New York plans to inform the NLRB of the following actions when they occur at the PERB:
18. Receipt of unfair labor practice complaint or recognizing a bargaining unit,
19. Any investigatory action taken regarding an unfair labor practice complaint or recognizing a bargaining unit, and
20. Resolution of an unfair labor practice complaint or recognition of a bargaining unit.
21. Absent a court order, how will the State of New York work with the NLRB to ascertain whether the NLRB has asserted jurisdiction over a matter currently before the PERB?
22. Absent a court order, will the PERB and/or the State of New York surrender any supposed jurisdiction of a matter under S. 8034A that the NLRB asserts jurisdiction over via its normal investigatory processes?
23. Will the PERB and/or the State of New York cease enforcement of S. 8034A on the date that the NLRB reaches a quorum?
24. Will you send a message to New York's State Assembly and State Senate leadership urging immediate repeal of S. 8034A on the date that the NLRB reaches a quorum?
Cost and Reimbursement
1. Will the State of New York reimburse New Yorkers for any costs, including time away from work, related to refiling any claim with the NLRB that was originally filed with the PERB?
2. If not, what categories of costs or specific costs will you reimburse?
3. Will you or your administration promise not to seek any federal reimbursement in any form for costs associated with implementing S. 8034A or defending it from any litigation that may arise related to its preemption?
4. Will you promise not to raise taxes or implement any fee structure of any sort to pay for the expansion of or additional hiring at the PERB or any state agency for costs related to implementing S. 8034A not already provided for in the state budget?
Impact on Workers
1. How will the State of New York communicate to workers how to file an unfair labor practice claim or petition to certify a bargaining unit with the PERB?
2. In those communications:
3. will the State of New York disclose that any unfair labor practice claim or petition to certify a bargaining unit adjudicated by the PERB only applies to state law?
4. will the State of New York disclose that any unfair labor practice claim or petition to certify a bargaining unit should also be properly filed with the NLRB?
5. will the State of New York disclose that anyone who files an unfair labor practice claim or petition to certify a bargaining unit with the PERB and NLRB may receive two different results, resulting in costs they must bear?
6. will the State of New York disclose that any result reached by the PERB will have no bearing on any decision to investigate, charge, or other result reached by the NLRB?
7. How did the State of New York come to the conclusion that subjecting workers to at least two separate legal fora, one of which is preempted by the other, and processes help workers resolve their unfair labor practice claims or petitions to certify a bargaining unit with certainty?
8. How will the State of New York explain PERB's supposed jurisdiction and the NLRB's jurisdiction over unfair labor practice claims or petitions to certify a bargaining unit to New Yorkers?
9. Please include a copy of any talking points, forms, charts, or any other document that may be provided to filers.
10. How does the PERB plan to enforce its orders on employers that are not headquartered in but operate in the State of New York and in others states as well?
11. Does the PERB plan on asserting its jurisdiction outside of the State of New York?
12. Did the State of New York engage in any sort of analysis to determine what filing claims with both the PERB and NLRB would cost New Yorkers?
13. Please include a copy of any analysis.
14. What is the State of New York's projection of the number of cases that will be needlessly delayed and add to the total time it takes for a worker to resolve their case as a result of S. 8034A?
15. What is the average additional time this process will add on to each case?
16. How long, on average, does it take for the PERB to process unfair labor practice claims or petitions to certify a bargaining unit?
* * *
Original text here: https://www.help.senate.gov/rep/newsroom/press/chair-cassidy-blasts-ny-gov-kathy-hochul-for-undermining-workers-rights-violating-us-constitution
CBO Issues Cost Estimate for Joint Resolution on Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Rule Relating to Overdraft Lending
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The Congressional Budget Office issued the following cost estimate for a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 59) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions":* * *
H.J. Res. 59 would disapprove a final rule published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in December 2024./1 That rule, with certain exceptions, applies Regulation Z (which implements the Truth in Lending Act) to overdraft credit offered by large financial institutions. By invoking a legislative process ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The Congressional Budget Office issued the following cost estimate for a joint resolution (H.J.Res. 59) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions": * * * H.J. Res. 59 would disapprove a final rule published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in December 2024./1 That rule, with certain exceptions, applies Regulation Z (which implements the Truth in Lending Act) to overdraft credit offered by large financial institutions. By invoking a legislative processestablished in the Congressional Review Act, the resolution would repeal the rule and prohibit the agency from issuing the same or any similar rule in the future.
Under current law, the CFPB is permanently authorized to spend amounts transferred from the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve in an amount necessary to carry out its responsibilities, subject to a statutory cap that was lowered by the 2025 reconciliation act. CBO expects that the CFPB will spend all the transferred funds up to its cap in each year over the 2026-2035 period.
CBO estimates that repealing the final rule would reduce the CFPB's administrative costs by $14 million over the 2026-2035 period, but that the reduction would be offset by increased spending on other required administrative activities, resulting in no net budgetary effect.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is David Hughes. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office
* * *
Footnote:
1. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions," final rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 106768 (December 30, 2024), https://tinyurl.com/ycxd32w4.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-09/hjres59.pdf
CBO Issues Cost Estimate for GRID Power Act
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The Congressional Budget Office issued the following cost estimate for the GRID Power Act (H.R. 1047).* * *
H.R. 1047 would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to revise the interconnection queue for electric power--a waitlist of energy projects to be connected to the electric grid. In particular, the act would require FERC to issue rules prioritizing and approving certain projects that provide new dispatchable power, enhance grid reliability, and meet on-demand electricity needs.
CBO expects that implementing H.R. 1047 could have a small effect on ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The Congressional Budget Office issued the following cost estimate for the GRID Power Act (H.R. 1047). * * * H.R. 1047 would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to revise the interconnection queue for electric power--a waitlist of energy projects to be connected to the electric grid. In particular, the act would require FERC to issue rules prioritizing and approving certain projects that provide new dispatchable power, enhance grid reliability, and meet on-demand electricity needs. CBO expects that implementing H.R. 1047 could have a small effect onFERC's workload. Any change in FERC's costs (which are controlled through annual appropriation acts) would be offset by fees that the commission charges. Accordingly, CBO estimates that implementing the act would result in a negligible net change in discretionary spending.
If FERC increases their fees to offset the costs of implementing the act, H.R. 1047 would increase the cost of an existing mandate on public and private entities, such as electric utilities, that are required to pay those fees. CBO estimates that the additional amounts collected would be small and fall well below the thresholds established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($103 million and $206 million in 2025, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Aaron Krupkin (for federal costs) and Brandon Lever (for mandates). The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-09/hr1047.pdf
Cato Institute Research Fellow Gillen Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development released the following testimony by Cato Institute research fellow Andrew Gillen from a Sept. 16, 2025, hearing entitled "No More Surprises: Reforming College Pricing for Students and Families":* * *
Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Wilson, and esteemed members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on these important matters.
Today's topic on price transparency in higher education is an excellent one, as higher education tends to have both high and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development released the following testimony by Cato Institute research fellow Andrew Gillen from a Sept. 16, 2025, hearing entitled "No More Surprises: Reforming College Pricing for Students and Families": * * * Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Wilson, and esteemed members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on these important matters. Today's topic on price transparency in higher education is an excellent one, as higher education tends to have both high anduncertain 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.'"/1
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./2
* Ohio University's guarantee covers tuition and fees, meal plans, and residence halls for four years./3
* The University of Cincinnati's guarantee locks in all costs for up to four or five years depending on the length of the program./4
* The University of North Carolina system fixes tuition for four years for new students./5
* * *
1 Stephen Burd, Rachel Fishman, Laura Keane, Julie Habbert, Ben Barrett, Kim Dancy, Sophie Nguyen, and Brendan Williams, "Decoding the Cost of College," New America, 2018. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/decoding-cost-college/
2 The Ohio State University, University Registrar. https://registrar.osu.edu/student-hub/tuition-and-fees/ohiostatetuition-guarantee/
3 Ohio University, Office of the Bursar. https://www.ohio.edu/bursar/ohio-guarantee
4 University of Cincinnati, Office of the Bursar. https://www.uc.edu/about/bursar/tuition-fees.html
5 The University of North Carolina System, Fixed Tuition Program. https://www.northcarolina.edu/impact/affordability-efficiency/fixed-tuition-program/
* * *
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.
* * *
The Pros and Cons of Price Transparency
The reasons to support price transparency generally fall into three buckets: economic, moral, and quality of life.
There are many economic arguments for price transparency. The first cluster of arguments focuses on market efficiency. Economists generally believe that more information increases market efficiency. For example, the competitive market framework generally assumes that there is full information, meaning that both buyers and sellers know all the information they need to make the best decisions. As we move further from this due to things like information asymmetries, market outcomes deviate from the ideal. For example, Akerloff's famous market for lemons paper/6 showed that uncertainty about used car quality can impair mutually beneficial market exchanges as buyers assume that used cars are lemons, which suppresses prices which in turn suppress the supply of high-quality used cars. The end result is market inefficiency - mutually beneficial transactions that don't occur due to the information asymmetry. While the used car market suffered from uncertain quality, similar problems could arise with uncertain prices, and price transparency can reduce these informational distortions and increase market efficiency.
Price transparency would also lead to more informed decision making. For example, a 2022 Government Accountability Office study found that fewer than half of colleges inform students of the total costs of attendance./7
Too many mistakes are made due to this lack of information, such as some students avoiding college because they think it costs more than it does, as well as some students attending college because they think it is more affordable than it is. Transparent prices would help reduce this problem of basically forcing students to choose whether to go to college without knowing the costs of that decision./8
Another set of economic arguments focuses on transactions costs. In the college context, these costs are mainly search costs, which refer to the costs in time and effort to find and compare information on different college options. These costs can be substantial, especially for first generation college students whose families don't have much experience with higher education and don't necessarily know what information they need or where to find it. By ensuring prices are transparent and more comparable, price transparency would reduce these costs.
Changes in the competitive pressure that colleges face provide another set of economic arguments in support of price transparency. For higher education, price transparency will typically encourage two beneficial changes. First, one of the reasons college costs increased so much over the years was because prices were so opaque. But as I testified a couple of years ago, "Increased price transparency would increase student and parent awareness of how much they have to pay, and their increased resistance to paying high prices would put pressure on colleges to reduce prices."/9
* * *
6 George A. Akerlof, "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 84, No. 3 (Aug., 1970). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1879431
7 U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Financial Aid Offers: Action Needed to Improve Information on College Costs and Student Aid," December 5, 2022. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-104708
8 Andrew Gillen, "Choosing a College Blindfolded," Minding the Campus, June 15, 2023. https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2023/06/15/choosing-a-college-blindfolded/
* * *
A second desirable benefit would be a reduction in price discrimination. Colleges collect very detailed information on student and parent ability to pay, and often offer highly personalized financial aid packages, which enable widespread and fine-grained price discrimination, which describes when people pay different prices for similar products or services. Price transparency could help encourage colleges to compete based on these highly visible prices rather than the current practice of relying on near universal scholarships to lure students to campus and altering subsequent financial aid to price discriminate. Some colleges even engage in scholarship displacement, which is when a college reduces a student's discounts or scholarships when the student receives an outside scholarship.
The main moral argument in support of price transparency concerns surprise bills. Surprise bills have received considerable attention in the health care context and for good reason. It shocks the conscience to receive unexpected, and often astronomical bills. Abuse was common, such as out of network doctors at an in-network hospital. For higher education, surprise bills take a number of forms. One example would be large annual increases in tuition. For example, if costs increase 6% a year, a student would be paying 19% more in their fourth year of college than they did in their first. If it takes them six years to graduate, they would be paying 34% more. Another surprise bill in higher education takes the form of disappearing or front-loaded scholarships that are available for first year students to entice them to enroll, but then are not renewed in the following years. These bait and switch practices can substantially increase the cost of attending college for many students.
Price transparency could all but eliminate surprise college bills.
The quality-of-life arguments for increased price transparency note that more predictable prices make it easier and less stressful for students and their families to make plans for financing college attendance.
But more price transparency also has some drawbacks and potential drawbacks.
The first potential drawback that some worry about with mandated price transparency is that it could start us down a slippery slope to price controls. Price controls are a terrible idea in general and would be for higher education as well. But it would be the price controls, not the price transparency that are the problem. Pairing price transparency with policies that forbid price controls can address this concern.
Another common concern with price transparency is that under certain conditions, it can lead to implicit price collusion among producers. I'll discuss this more shortly in the context of the market for cement.
The last common objection to price transparency in the form of guaranteed tuition for a set period of time is that it limits the flexibility of colleges to respond to financial shocks. For example, an unexpected burst of inflation, or a decline in state funding for higher education would be harder for colleges to deal with if they've already locked in prices for many of their students. This is a valid concern, but it should be noted that giving colleges more flexibility will often just mean that they transfer the burden of dealing with such shocks to students and parents, who are even less prepared to handle it than colleges.
* * *
9 Andrew Gillen, "Statement Before the House Committee on Education and Workforce On Lowering Costs and Increasing Value for Students, Institutions, and Taxpayers," Texas Public Policy Foundation, July 27, 2023. https://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/gillen_testimony.pdf
* * *
What Can We Learn about Price Transparency in Other Industries?
There have been several studies of the effects of price transparency in other industries, notably health care and cement. Unfortunately, we probably can't learn much from these experiences.
In health care, increased transparency has resulted in mixed effects in terms of price changes. As Jinyang Chen and Marisa Miraldo note in a literature review, more transparency leads to lower prices for some services like laboratory and imaging tests, but higher prices for other services "in higher-ranked or rated facilities, which was referred to as the reputation premium."/10
The reputation premium result might replicate in higher education, but it is not guaranteed. After all, top colleges already know (or have a very educated guess as to) what their peers charge, it's the students that are in dark.
The level of aggregation in health care and education are also very different. Hospital billing is notorious for having extremely fine grained and confusing charges for a huge variety of services, whereas in higher education, there are just a handful of key numbers (total cost of attendance, tuition and fees, and room and board) and they tend to be bundled together. Thus, to the extent complexity and subsequent consumer confusion reduced the impact of price transparency in healthcare, we shouldn't expect the same result in the less complex higher education market.
Education is also different from health care in that for health care, consumers often have no idea what procedures or tests they need, which makes it nearly impossible to shop around for many health care needs. It is notable that the one area where transparent prices lead to lower prices was for standardized non-time sensitive services like laboratory tests and imaging. Higher education is much more similar to laboratory tests and imaging than it is to an emergency room trip in that the main services are known about beforehand.
Transparency efforts in healthcare also suffer from a lack of compliance, with many hospitals refusing to publish their price lists. This problem could be easily avoided in higher education by tying compliance to participation in Title IV aid programs like Pell grants and student loans.
In the cement industry, there is evidence that price transparency enabled implicit collusion among producers. For example, when the government in Denmark required publicly posted prices for cement, prices increased by 15-20 percent because "publication of prices allowed firms to reduce the intensity of oligopoly price competition."/11
In other words, producers used their required price disclosures to implicitly collude to increase prices.
* * *
10 Jinyang Chen and Marisa Miraldo "The impact of hospital price and quality transparency tools on healthcare spending: a systematic review," Health Economics Review, 2022. https://healtheconomicsreview.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13561-022-00409-4
* * *
But a similar result is unlikely for higher education for two reasons. First, ironically, cement has a short shelf-life, and must therefore be produced close to the ultimate users. In contrast, college is often a national market, which makes collusion more difficult. Second, when we have seen collusion in higher education, it tends to be among high quality institutions. For example, the Overlap group operated a type of collusion for decades last century, an arrangement that was finally undone by a Department of Justice antitrust suit in the 1990s./12
Today, the 568 group, another group suspected of collusion, is being actively litigated./13
Thus, in the unlikely event that increased price transparency does increase collusion, there is strong reason to believe such collusion will be detected and remedied by the courts.
* * *
Complications for Higher Education
Higher education does have several complicating factors to consider when designing price transparency measures. For starters, should transparency apply to tuition and fees, or to the total cost of attendance, which includes, room and board and other common costs of enrollment as well.
In addition, should transparency focus on published prices (often called sticker prices) or on the net prices that reflect what students and families really pay after accounting for grant aid. Net prices are more useful, but published prices are easier to implement and interpret. Even more problematic is that published prices may work well for some types of colleges that don't give much institutional aid (such as public colleges) but would not work well at all for other types of colleges that give lots of institutional aid (many non-profit colleges).
Another set of questions concerns how long the price guarantee would last for. There are several focal points, such as two years for associate degrees, or four years for bachelor's, or perhaps each program's median time to degree for recent cohorts. But regardless of what length is chosen, the reality is that many students will not be covered for the entirety of their education.
* * *
Recommendations
The main conclusion is that the benefits of price transparency are almost certain to outweigh their costs. New legislation to increase price transparency is appropriate and should:
* Standardize financial aid terminology.
* * *
11 Svend Albaek, Peter Mollgaard, and Per B. Overgaard, "Government-Assisted Oligoply Coordination? A Concrete Case," The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1997. https://sites.duke.edu/collardwexler/files/2015/01/danish_concrete_cartel.pdf
12 Caroline M. Hoxby, "Benevolent Colluders? The Effects of Antitrust Action on College Financial Aid and Tuition," NBER Working Paper 7754, June 2000. https://www.nber.org/papers/w7754
13 Peter Coy, "How Much Deference Do Elite U.S. Colleges Deserve?," New York Times, Jan. 14, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/opinion/colleges-antitrust-law.html
* * *
* Supplement existing net price calculators with a universal one that facilitates comparisons across colleges.
* Require a price guarantee for the typical length of a program.
* Make price transparency a condition of participation in Title IV programs like Pell grants and student loans to ensure compliance.
* Forbid price controls through departmental regulation that seeks to set or influence the prices colleges charge.
* Consider applying the price guarantee only for states that don't implement their own version. Given that there are key open questions (e.g., tuition or total costs?, published prices or net prices?, how long should a guarantee last?), we might benefit from different states experimenting with different versions of price transparency. However, if states implement their own versions of price transparency, require standardized terminology and formats to ensure that information is machine readable and comparable across states.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/andrew_gillen_testimony_final.pdf
Cato Institute Research Fellow Gillen Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development released the following testimony by Cato Institute research fellow Andrew Gillen from a Sept. 16, 2025, hearing entitled "No More Surprises: Reforming College Pricing for Students and Families":* * *
Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Wilson, and esteemed members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on these important matters.
Today's topic on price transparency in higher education is an excellent one, as higher education tends to have both high and ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development released the following testimony by Cato Institute research fellow Andrew Gillen from a Sept. 16, 2025, hearing entitled "No More Surprises: Reforming College Pricing for Students and Families": * * * Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Wilson, and esteemed members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on these important matters. Today's topic on price transparency in higher education is an excellent one, as higher education tends to have both high anduncertain 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.'"/1
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./2
* Ohio University's guarantee covers tuition and fees, meal plans, and residence halls for four years./3
* The University of Cincinnati's guarantee locks in all costs for up to four or five years depending on the length of the program./4
* The University of North Carolina system fixes tuition for four years for new students./5
* * *
1 Stephen Burd, Rachel Fishman, Laura Keane, Julie Habbert, Ben Barrett, Kim Dancy, Sophie Nguyen, and Brendan Williams, "Decoding the Cost of College," New America, 2018. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/decoding-cost-college/
2 The Ohio State University, University Registrar. https://registrar.osu.edu/student-hub/tuition-and-fees/ohiostatetuition-guarantee/
3 Ohio University, Office of the Bursar. https://www.ohio.edu/bursar/ohio-guarantee
4 University of Cincinnati, Office of the Bursar. https://www.uc.edu/about/bursar/tuition-fees.html
5 The University of North Carolina System, Fixed Tuition Program. https://www.northcarolina.edu/impact/affordability-efficiency/fixed-tuition-program/
* * *
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.
* * *
The Pros and Cons of Price Transparency
The reasons to support price transparency generally fall into three buckets: economic, moral, and quality of life.
There are many economic arguments for price transparency. The first cluster of arguments focuses on market efficiency. Economists generally believe that more information increases market efficiency. For example, the competitive market framework generally assumes that there is full information, meaning that both buyers and sellers know all the information they need to make the best decisions. As we move further from this due to things like information asymmetries, market outcomes deviate from the ideal. For example, Akerloff's famous market for lemons paper/6 showed that uncertainty about used car quality can impair mutually beneficial market exchanges as buyers assume that used cars are lemons, which suppresses prices which in turn suppress the supply of high-quality used cars. The end result is market inefficiency - mutually beneficial transactions that don't occur due to the information asymmetry. While the used car market suffered from uncertain quality, similar problems could arise with uncertain prices, and price transparency can reduce these informational distortions and increase market efficiency.
Price transparency would also lead to more informed decision making. For example, a 2022 Government Accountability Office study found that fewer than half of colleges inform students of the total costs of attendance./7
Too many mistakes are made due to this lack of information, such as some students avoiding college because they think it costs more than it does, as well as some students attending college because they think it is more affordable than it is. Transparent prices would help reduce this problem of basically forcing students to choose whether to go to college without knowing the costs of that decision./8
Another set of economic arguments focuses on transactions costs. In the college context, these costs are mainly search costs, which refer to the costs in time and effort to find and compare information on different college options. These costs can be substantial, especially for first generation college students whose families don't have much experience with higher education and don't necessarily know what information they need or where to find it. By ensuring prices are transparent and more comparable, price transparency would reduce these costs.
Changes in the competitive pressure that colleges face provide another set of economic arguments in support of price transparency. For higher education, price transparency will typically encourage two beneficial changes. First, one of the reasons college costs increased so much over the years was because prices were so opaque. But as I testified a couple of years ago, "Increased price transparency would increase student and parent awareness of how much they have to pay, and their increased resistance to paying high prices would put pressure on colleges to reduce prices."/9
* * *
6 George A. Akerlof, "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 84, No. 3 (Aug., 1970). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1879431
7 U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Financial Aid Offers: Action Needed to Improve Information on College Costs and Student Aid," December 5, 2022. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-104708
8 Andrew Gillen, "Choosing a College Blindfolded," Minding the Campus, June 15, 2023. https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2023/06/15/choosing-a-college-blindfolded/
* * *
A second desirable benefit would be a reduction in price discrimination. Colleges collect very detailed information on student and parent ability to pay, and often offer highly personalized financial aid packages, which enable widespread and fine-grained price discrimination, which describes when people pay different prices for similar products or services. Price transparency could help encourage colleges to compete based on these highly visible prices rather than the current practice of relying on near universal scholarships to lure students to campus and altering subsequent financial aid to price discriminate. Some colleges even engage in scholarship displacement, which is when a college reduces a student's discounts or scholarships when the student receives an outside scholarship.
The main moral argument in support of price transparency concerns surprise bills. Surprise bills have received considerable attention in the health care context and for good reason. It shocks the conscience to receive unexpected, and often astronomical bills. Abuse was common, such as out of network doctors at an in-network hospital. For higher education, surprise bills take a number of forms. One example would be large annual increases in tuition. For example, if costs increase 6% a year, a student would be paying 19% more in their fourth year of college than they did in their first. If it takes them six years to graduate, they would be paying 34% more. Another surprise bill in higher education takes the form of disappearing or front-loaded scholarships that are available for first year students to entice them to enroll, but then are not renewed in the following years. These bait and switch practices can substantially increase the cost of attending college for many students.
Price transparency could all but eliminate surprise college bills.
The quality-of-life arguments for increased price transparency note that more predictable prices make it easier and less stressful for students and their families to make plans for financing college attendance.
But more price transparency also has some drawbacks and potential drawbacks.
The first potential drawback that some worry about with mandated price transparency is that it could start us down a slippery slope to price controls. Price controls are a terrible idea in general and would be for higher education as well. But it would be the price controls, not the price transparency that are the problem. Pairing price transparency with policies that forbid price controls can address this concern.
Another common concern with price transparency is that under certain conditions, it can lead to implicit price collusion among producers. I'll discuss this more shortly in the context of the market for cement.
The last common objection to price transparency in the form of guaranteed tuition for a set period of time is that it limits the flexibility of colleges to respond to financial shocks. For example, an unexpected burst of inflation, or a decline in state funding for higher education would be harder for colleges to deal with if they've already locked in prices for many of their students. This is a valid concern, but it should be noted that giving colleges more flexibility will often just mean that they transfer the burden of dealing with such shocks to students and parents, who are even less prepared to handle it than colleges.
* * *
9 Andrew Gillen, "Statement Before the House Committee on Education and Workforce On Lowering Costs and Increasing Value for Students, Institutions, and Taxpayers," Texas Public Policy Foundation, July 27, 2023. https://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/gillen_testimony.pdf
* * *
What Can We Learn about Price Transparency in Other Industries?
There have been several studies of the effects of price transparency in other industries, notably health care and cement. Unfortunately, we probably can't learn much from these experiences.
In health care, increased transparency has resulted in mixed effects in terms of price changes. As Jinyang Chen and Marisa Miraldo note in a literature review, more transparency leads to lower prices for some services like laboratory and imaging tests, but higher prices for other services "in higher-ranked or rated facilities, which was referred to as the reputation premium."/10
The reputation premium result might replicate in higher education, but it is not guaranteed. After all, top colleges already know (or have a very educated guess as to) what their peers charge, it's the students that are in dark.
The level of aggregation in health care and education are also very different. Hospital billing is notorious for having extremely fine grained and confusing charges for a huge variety of services, whereas in higher education, there are just a handful of key numbers (total cost of attendance, tuition and fees, and room and board) and they tend to be bundled together. Thus, to the extent complexity and subsequent consumer confusion reduced the impact of price transparency in healthcare, we shouldn't expect the same result in the less complex higher education market.
Education is also different from health care in that for health care, consumers often have no idea what procedures or tests they need, which makes it nearly impossible to shop around for many health care needs. It is notable that the one area where transparent prices lead to lower prices was for standardized non-time sensitive services like laboratory tests and imaging. Higher education is much more similar to laboratory tests and imaging than it is to an emergency room trip in that the main services are known about beforehand.
Transparency efforts in healthcare also suffer from a lack of compliance, with many hospitals refusing to publish their price lists. This problem could be easily avoided in higher education by tying compliance to participation in Title IV aid programs like Pell grants and student loans.
In the cement industry, there is evidence that price transparency enabled implicit collusion among producers. For example, when the government in Denmark required publicly posted prices for cement, prices increased by 15-20 percent because "publication of prices allowed firms to reduce the intensity of oligopoly price competition."/11
In other words, producers used their required price disclosures to implicitly collude to increase prices.
* * *
10 Jinyang Chen and Marisa Miraldo "The impact of hospital price and quality transparency tools on healthcare spending: a systematic review," Health Economics Review, 2022. https://healtheconomicsreview.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13561-022-00409-4
* * *
But a similar result is unlikely for higher education for two reasons. First, ironically, cement has a short shelf-life, and must therefore be produced close to the ultimate users. In contrast, college is often a national market, which makes collusion more difficult. Second, when we have seen collusion in higher education, it tends to be among high quality institutions. For example, the Overlap group operated a type of collusion for decades last century, an arrangement that was finally undone by a Department of Justice antitrust suit in the 1990s./12
Today, the 568 group, another group suspected of collusion, is being actively litigated./13
Thus, in the unlikely event that increased price transparency does increase collusion, there is strong reason to believe such collusion will be detected and remedied by the courts.
* * *
Complications for Higher Education
Higher education does have several complicating factors to consider when designing price transparency measures. For starters, should transparency apply to tuition and fees, or to the total cost of attendance, which includes, room and board and other common costs of enrollment as well.
In addition, should transparency focus on published prices (often called sticker prices) or on the net prices that reflect what students and families really pay after accounting for grant aid. Net prices are more useful, but published prices are easier to implement and interpret. Even more problematic is that published prices may work well for some types of colleges that don't give much institutional aid (such as public colleges) but would not work well at all for other types of colleges that give lots of institutional aid (many non-profit colleges).
Another set of questions concerns how long the price guarantee would last for. There are several focal points, such as two years for associate degrees, or four years for bachelor's, or perhaps each program's median time to degree for recent cohorts. But regardless of what length is chosen, the reality is that many students will not be covered for the entirety of their education.
* * *
Recommendations
The main conclusion is that the benefits of price transparency are almost certain to outweigh their costs. New legislation to increase price transparency is appropriate and should:
* Standardize financial aid terminology.
* * *
11 Svend Albaek, Peter Mollgaard, and Per B. Overgaard, "Government-Assisted Oligoply Coordination? A Concrete Case," The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1997. https://sites.duke.edu/collardwexler/files/2015/01/danish_concrete_cartel.pdf
12 Caroline M. Hoxby, "Benevolent Colluders? The Effects of Antitrust Action on College Financial Aid and Tuition," NBER Working Paper 7754, June 2000. https://www.nber.org/papers/w7754
13 Peter Coy, "How Much Deference Do Elite U.S. Colleges Deserve?," New York Times, Jan. 14, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/opinion/colleges-antitrust-law.html
* * *
* Supplement existing net price calculators with a universal one that facilitates comparisons across colleges.
* Require a price guarantee for the typical length of a program.
* Make price transparency a condition of participation in Title IV programs like Pell grants and student loans to ensure compliance.
* Forbid price controls through departmental regulation that seeks to set or influence the prices colleges charge.
* Consider applying the price guarantee only for states that don't implement their own version. Given that there are key open questions (e.g., tuition or total costs?, published prices or net prices?, how long should a guarantee last?), we might benefit from different states experimenting with different versions of price transparency. However, if states implement their own versions of price transparency, require standardized terminology and formats to ensure that information is machine readable and comparable across states.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/andrew_gillen_testimony_final.pdf
Cantwell Calls on Sinclair Broadcasting to Return 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' to the Air
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, issued the following news release on Sept. 24, 2025:* * *
Cantwell Calls on Sinclair Broadcasting to Return Jimmy Kimmel Live! to the Air
"Your decision not to reinstate comedian Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show appears contrary to the inherently local aspects of your station licenses..."
*
U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over the Federal Communications ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, issued the following news release on Sept. 24, 2025: * * * Cantwell Calls on Sinclair Broadcasting to Return Jimmy Kimmel Live! to the Air "Your decision not to reinstate comedian Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show appears contrary to the inherently local aspects of your station licenses..." * U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over the Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC), today wrote to Sinclair Broadcast Group President and CEO Christopher S. Ripley, calling on him to immediately reinstate Jimmy Kimmel Live! to Sinclair's KOMO-TV in Seattle and its affiliates across the country.
"The First Amendment ensures the freedom of expression and a free press, and our nation's media landscape needs to embody those ideals," wrote Sen. Cantwell. "As a trusted voice in the community, local broadcasting is a critical part of that landscape. Your decision not to reinstate comedian Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show appears contrary to the inherently local aspects of your station licenses, given the popularity of Mr. Kimmel's show in the market. I urge you to return Mr. Kimmel's show to KOMO-TV."
Last week, following FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's threats to Disney/ABC and its affiliates that he would seek retribution if they did not cancel Jimmy Kimmel's show, it was immediately suspended. Although ABC returned Kimmel to the air last night, Sinclair issued a statement declaring that ABC's suspension was "not enough" and proceeded with preemption of Jimmy Kimmel Live! from all 39 ABC affiliates.
"Broadcast licensees can--and do--decide what programming to air in their communities of license," explained Sen. Cantwell. "Licensees also choose to enter into affiliate agreements with national networks, such as ABC."
The Senator continued, "Your ABC affiliate in Seattle, KOMO-TV, is one of the most popular stations in the area, and ratings for Jimmy Kimmel Live! are higher in the Seattle DMA than the national average. I am concerned that your decision, made on a national level, will negatively impact how millions of viewers in the Puget Sound region access quality, local news and programming. And while viewers may still be able to access Jimmy Kimmel Live! through ABC and Disney's streaming platforms the next day, this puts content behind a paywall. Local broadcast programming must be available over-the-air to ensure widespread access to local news and information."
On September 24, Sen. Cantwell led a letter to Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas), requesting he call FCC Chair Brendan Carr to testify before the Committee following Carr's threats to use FCC regulatory power against ABC and its affiliates.
The full text of the letter is below and a PDF can be found HERE (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/712A8C34-49FF-4809-A3C5-DFDD33CEE026).
Dear Mr. Ripley:
I write to express my concerns regarding your decision to continue preempting Jimmy Kimmel Live! from KOMO-TV in Seattle and your affiliate stations across the country. The First Amendment ensures the freedom of expression and a free press, and our nation's media landscape needs to embody those ideals. As a trusted voice in the community, local broadcasting is a critical part of that landscape. Your decision not to reinstate comedian Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show appears contrary to the inherently local aspects of your station licenses, given the popularity of Mr. Kimmel's show in the market. I urge you to return Mr. Kimmel's show to KOMO-TV.
Last week, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on a podcast and threatened Disney/ABC and its affiliates with retribution if they did not stop airing Kimmel's show. Hours later, Nexstar, the largest broadcast station group, announced it would preempt Mr. Kimmel's show effective immediately on its 32 ABC affiliate stations; ABC announced an indefinite suspension of Mr. Kimmel's show shortly thereafter. Following ABC's announcement, Sinclair then issued its own statement declaring that ABC's suspension is "not enough" before proceeding with the preemption of Jimmy Kimmel Live! from your 39 affiliates, as well as a list of demands, including an apology and monetary donation from Mr. Kimmel to the Kirk Family, before returning his show to your stations. Now, even as ABC returned Mr. Kimmel's show to the airwaves last night, Sinclair continues to preempt while conversations with ABC are ongoing. This meant that my constituents who live in the Seattle Designated Market Area (DMA)--more than 5 million people--were unable to watch Mr. Kimmel's show on KOMO last night.
Broadcast licensees can--and do--decide what programming to air in their communities of license. Licensees also choose to enter into affiliate agreements with national networks, such as ABC.
Your ABC affiliate in Seattle, KOMO-TV, is one of the most popular stations in the area, and ratings for Jimmy Kimmel Live! are higher in the Seattle DMA than the national average. I am concerned that your decision, made on a national level, will negatively impact how millions of viewers in the Puget Sound region access quality, local news, and programming. And while viewers may still be able to access Jimmy Kimmel Live! through ABC and Disney's streaming platforms, the next day, this puts content behind a paywall. Local broadcast programming must be available over-the-air to ensure widespread access to local news and information. I know we share this goal.
I urge you to listen to your community of license and return Jimmy Kimmel Live! to KOMO-TV.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/9/cantwell-calls-on-sinclair-broadcasting-to-return-jimmy-kimmel-live-to-the-air
Blumenthal Statement on VA Doctors' Warning That Trump Admin's Cuts & Firings Have Weakened Veterans' Health Care
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, issued the following news on Sept. 24, 2025:* * *
Blumenthal Statement on VA Doctors' Warning that Trump Admin's Cuts & Firings Have Weakened Veterans' Health Care
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) today released a statement following a letter penned by nearly seventy active Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctors stressing their urgent concerns that the Trump Administration's cuts, firings, and other cost-cutting workforce directives ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, issued the following news on Sept. 24, 2025: * * * Blumenthal Statement on VA Doctors' Warning that Trump Admin's Cuts & Firings Have Weakened Veterans' Health Care Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) today released a statement following a letter penned by nearly seventy active Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctors stressing their urgent concerns that the Trump Administration's cuts, firings, and other cost-cutting workforce directivesare damaging VA's health care system and will "negatively affect the lives of all veterans."
"Courageously and powerfully, VA physicians are sounding an alarm--in fact, a five alarm fire--on devastating damage to VA health care as a result of this Administration's funding cuts, contract cancellations, and personnel firings. Their warnings, made at great personal risk, need to be heeded. I've sounded a similar alarm for months, but these professionals have expert firsthand knowledge of how Collins's cruel, reckless missteps are threatening and degrading VA health care."
The health care professionals' letter is the first time VA physicians have collectively warned about the negative impact of the Trump Administration's workforce cuts, amid existing health care staffing shortages at the Department. Many VA physicians and other providers signed the letter with their full names and position titles, stating to the Guardian this action was "a risk they're willing to take."
VA's health care system is the largest integrated health care system in the country, serving more than nine million veterans. Previous reporting has detailed the significant loss of thousands of VA staff working in direct care and veteran-facing roles at the Veterans Health Administration in fiscal year 2025.
* * *
View letter here: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/68c33d76c4de3e1fbd22be2b/68d37f78728780f23bdf60a5_Lincoln%20Declaration%209-24%20update%20final.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.veterans.senate.gov/2025/9/blumenthal-statement-on-va-doctors-warning-that-trump-admin-s-cuts-firings-have-weakened-veterans-health-care