29–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113–205 

SUPPORTING ACADEMIC FREEDOM THROUGH 

REGULATORY RELIEF ACT 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. KLINE, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2637] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 2637) to prohibit the Secretary of Education 

from engaging in regulatory overreach with regard to institutional 

eligibility under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and 

for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 

thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory 

Relief Act’’. 

SEC. 2. REGULATORY RELIEF. 

(a) REGULATIONS REPEALED.— 

(1) REPEAL.—The following regulations (including any supplement or revision 

to such regulations) are repealed and shall have no legal effect: 

(A) STATE AUTHORIZATION.—Sections 600.4(a)(3), 600.5(a)(4), 600.6(a)(3), 

600.9, and 668.43(b) of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to 

State authorization), as added or amended by the final regulations published by the Department of Education in the Federal Register on October 

29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66832 et seq.). 

(B) DEFINITION OF CREDIT HOUR.—The definition of the term ‘‘credit hour’’ 

in section 600.2 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, as added by the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

final regulations published by the Department of Education in the Federal 

Register on October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66946), and clauses (i)(A), (ii), 

and (iii) of subsection (k)(2) of section 668.8 of such title, as amended by 

such final regulations (75 Fed. Reg. 66949 et seq.). 

(C) GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.—Sections 600.10(c), 600.20(d), 668.6, and 

668.7, of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations as added or amended by the 

final regulations published by the Department of Education in the Federal 

Register on October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66832 et seq. and 75 Fed. Reg. 

66665 et seq.) and June 13, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 34386 et seq.). 

(2) EFFECT OF REPEAL.—To the extent that regulations repealed by paragraph 

(1) amended regulations that were in effect on June 30, 2011, the provisions of 

the regulations that were in effect on June 30, 2011, and were so amended are 

restored and revived as if the regulations repealed by paragraph (1) had not 

taken effect. 

(b) CERTAIN REGULATIONS PROHIBITED.— 

(1) STATE AUTHORIZATION AND GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Education shall not, during the period 

described in subparagraph (B), promulgate or enforce any regulation or rule 

not in effect on the date of enactment of this Act for any purpose under the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) with respect to— 

(i) the State authorization for institutions of higher education to operate within a State; or 

(ii) the definition or application of the term ‘‘gainful employment’’. 

(B) PERIOD OF PROHIBITION.—The period during which the Secretary is 

prohibited from promulgating or enforcing a regulation described in subparagraph (A) shall be the period beginning on the date of enactment of 

this Act and ending on the date of enactment of a law that extends by not 

less than 2 fiscal years the authorization or duration of one or more programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). 

(2) CREDIT HOUR.—The Secretary of Education shall not, on or after the date 

of enactment of this Act, promulgate or enforce any regulation or rule with respect to the definition of the term ‘‘credit hour’’ for any purpose under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). 

SEC. 3. THIRD-PARTY SERVICE PROVIDERS. 

Section 487(a)(20) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(20)) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an institution described in section 101 may provide payment, based on the 

amount of tuition generated by the institution from student enrollment, to a thirdparty entity that provides a set of services to the institution that includes student 

recruitment services, regardless of whether the third-party entity is affiliated with 

an institution that provides educational services other than the institution providing 

such payment, if— 

‘‘(A) the third-party entity is not affiliated with the institution providing 

such payment; 

‘‘(B) the third-party entity does not make compensation payments to its 

employees that are prohibited under this paragraph; 

‘‘(C) the set of services provided to the institution by the third-party entity include services in addition to student recruitment services, and the institution does not pay the third-party entity solely or separately for student 

recruitment services provided by the third-party entity; and 

‘‘(D) any student recruitment information available to the third-party entity, including personally identifiable information, will not be used by, 

shared with, or sold to any other person or entity, including any institution 

that is affiliated with the third-party entity.’’. 

PURPOSE

H.R. 2637, Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory 

Relief Act, reduces the federal government’s overreach into postsecondary academic affairs and helps increase access to higher education for our nation’s most disadvantaged students. It protects the 

academic autonomy of colleges and universities and restores the 

authority of states and accrediting agencies over our nation’s higher education system. The bill repeals the credit hour, state authorization, and gainful employment regulations and amends the statute to clarify the incentive compensation regulation. Additionally, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

the bill prohibits the U.S. Department of Education from issuing 

related regulations until after Congress reauthorizes the Higher 

Education Act. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

As the Committee on Education and the Workforce continues to 

evaluate the appropriate role of the federal government in education, we are committed to ensuring students are afforded the 

freedom to choose institutions of higher education that best meet 

their unique needs, and colleges and universities are protected 

from unnecessary and burdensome federal regulatory schemes. 

112TH CONGRESS

Hearings 

On March 1, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C. on ‘‘Education Regulations: Weighing the Burden on Schools and Students.’’ The hearing 

was the first in a series examining the burden of federal, state, and 

local regulations on the nation’s education system. The purpose of 

the hearing was to uncover the damaging effects of federal regulations that increasingly stifle growth and innovation, raise institutions’ operating costs, and limit student access to affordable colleges and universities throughout the nation. Testifying before the 

committee were: Mr. Gene Wilhoit, Executive Director, Council of 

Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Edgar Hatrick, 

Superintendent, Loudoun County Public Schools, Ashburn, Virginia; Mr. Christopher B. Nelson, President, St. John’s College, Annapolis, Maryland; and Ms. Kati Haycock, President, The Education Trust, Washington, D.C. 

On March 11, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C. on ‘‘Education Regulations: 

Federal Overreach into Academic Affairs.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the most egregious and intrusive pieces of the 

U.S. Department of Education’s program integrity regulations—the 

credit hour and state authorization regulations—and uncover their 

unintended consequences on states and institutions of higher education. Testifying before the subcommittee were: Mr. Ralph Wolff, 

President, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Alameda, 

California; Mr. John Ebersole, President, Excelsior College, Albany, 

New York; Dr. G. Blair Dowden, President, Huntington University, 

Huntington, Indiana; and the Honorable Kathleen Tighe, Inspector 

General, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 

On March 17, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing in Washington, D.C. on ‘‘Education Regulations: Roadblocks to Student Choice in Higher Education.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to explore the harmful consequences of the 

U.S. Department of Education’s gainful employment regulation and 

discuss how these requirements impede college access, stifle job 

creation, and demonstrate federal overreach into the nation’s postsecondary education system. Testifying before the committee were: 

Ms. Catherine Barreto, Graduate, Monroe College and Senior Sales 

Associate, Doubletree Hotels, Brooklyn, New York; Ms. Jeanne 

Herrmann, Chief Operating Officer, Globe University/Minnesota 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

School of Business, Woodbury, Minnesota; Mr. Travis Jennings, 

Electrical Supervisor of the Manufacturing Launch Systems Group, 

Orbital Sciences Corporation, Chandler, Arizona; and Dr. Arnold 

Mitchem, President, Council for Opportunity in Education, Washington, D.C. 

On July 8, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training held a 

joint hearing with the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, 

and Government Spending in Washington, D.C. on ‘‘The Gainful 

Employment Regulation: Limiting Job Growth and Student 

Choice.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to explore the harmful 

consequences of the U.S. Department of Education’s gainful employment regulation and how the new requirements impede college 

access, stifle job creation, and continue the administration’s federal 

overreach into the nation’s postsecondary education system. Testifying before the subcommittees were: Mr. Harry C. Alford, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Dario A. Cortes, President, Berkeley 

College, New York City, New York; Ms. Karla Carpenter, Graduate, Herzing University and Program Manager, Quest Software, 

Dane County, Wisconsin; and Dr. Anthony P. Carnevale, Director, 

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

Legislative action—first session 

On February 17, 2011, the House of Representatives considered 

an amendment offered by Reps. John Kline (R–MN), Virginia Foxx 

(R–NC), and Alcee Hastings (D–FL) to H.R. 1, the Disaster Relief 

Appropriations Act of 2013. The amendment prohibited the use of 

funds by the U.S. Department of Education to implement and enforce the gainful employment regulation. The amendment was 

agreed to by a bipartisan vote of 289 to 136. 

On February 19, 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 

1 by a vote of 235 to 189. The amendment was not included in the 

conference agreement. 

On June 3, 2011, Reps. Virginia Foxx (R–NC) and John Kline 

(R–MN) introduced H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in 

Higher Education Act. The bill repealed the federal credit hour and 

state authorization regulations and prohibited the Secretary of 

Education from defining ‘‘credit hour’’ for any purpose under the 

Higher Education Act of 1965. 

On June 15, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce considered H.R. 2117 in legislative session, and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 27 to 11. The committee considered and adopted the 

following amendment to H.R. 2117: 

• Rep. Virginia Foxx (R–NC) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to add a short title to the legislation. The 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

The committee further considered the following amendments to 

H.R. 2117, which were not adopted: 

• Rep. Rau ́l Grijalva (D–AZ) offered an amendment to maintain 

the state authorization regulation’s complaint process and the reVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:01 Sep 13, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

quirement for authorization by name. The amendment failed by a 

vote of 17–22. 

• Rep. George Miller (D–CA) offered an amendment to prohibit 

implementation of the Act until the U.S. Department of Education’s 

Inspector General certifies there are equal or greater protections in 

place related to program integrity under Title IV of the Higher 

Education Act. The amendment failed by a vote of 17–22. 

• Rep. Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered an amendment to stipulate that 

the Act will be effective only if the maximum Pell Grant award is 

at least $5,550 for the 2012–2013 school year. The amendment was 

ruled out of order. 

• Rep. Tim Bishop (D–NY) offered an amendment to strike the 

repeal of the federal definition of a credit hour. The amendment 

failed by a vote of 11–27. 

• Rep. Tim Bishop (D–NY) offered an amendment to strike the 

prohibition on the Secretary of Education from defining credit hour 

in the future. The amendment failed by a vote of 16–22. 

Second session 

On February 28, 2012, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 

2117 by a bipartisan vote of 303 to 114. The bill was sent to the 

Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

113TH CONGRESS

Hearing—first session 

On July 9, 2013, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C. on ‘‘Keeping College Within 

Reach: Improving Higher Education through Innovation.’’ The purpose of this hearing was to highlight innovation in higher education occurring at the state and institutional level and in the private sector, and discuss federal roadblocks to those innovative practices. Testifying before the committee were: Mr. Scott Jenkins, Director of External Relations, Western Governors University, Salt 

Lake City, Utah; Dr. Pamela J. Tate, President and Chief Executive Officer, Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, Chicago, 

Illinois; Mr. Burck Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, 

StraighterLine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Dr. Joann Boughman, 

Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University System of 

Maryland, Adelphi, Maryland. 

Legislative action—first session 

On July 10, 2013, Reps. Virginia Foxx (R–NC), John Kline (R– 

MN), and Alcee Hastings (D–FL) introduced H.R. 2637, Supporting 

Academic Freedom through Regulatory Relief Act. The bill, which 

includes the text of the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher 

Education Act (H.R. 2117) and the Kline/Foxx/Hastings amendment to H.R. 1 from the 112th Congress, repeals the credit hour, 

state authorization, and gainful employment regulations and 

amends the statute to clarify the incentive compensation regulation. Additionally, the bill prohibits the U.S. Department of Education from issuing related regulations until after Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

On July 24, 2013, the Committee on Education and the Workforce considered H.R. 2637 in legislative session, and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 22 to 13. The committee considered and adopted the 

following amendment to H.R. 2637: • Rep. Virginia Foxx (R–NC) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to change a subsection title in the legislation. 

The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

The committee further considered the following amendment to 

H.R. 2637, which was not adopted: • Rep. Tim Bishop (D–NY) offered an amendment to strike the 

prohibition on the U.S. Department of Education from issuing regulations related to state authorization, gainful employment, and 

credit hour. The amendment failed by a vote of 13–22. 

Below is a summary of H.R. 2637. 

SUMMARY

The Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory Relief 

Act eliminates the most burdensome ‘‘program integrity’’ regulations and prevents future federal overreach in postsecondary academic affairs. Specifically, the bill: 

• Repeals the federal definition of a credit hour. It would also 

prohibit the secretary from defining ‘‘credit hour’’ in the future. 

• Repeals the state authorization regulation, which forces states 

to follow federal requirements when deciding whether to grant an 

institution—including those offering online education programs— 

permission to operate within the state. 

• Repeals the gainful employment regulation, which would levy 

reporting burdens on community and proprietary colleges and force 

administrators to seek federal approval before creating programs. 

• Amends the statute to clarify the incentive compensation regulation to ensure third-party service providers are allowed to enter 

into tuition-sharing agreements with nonprofit colleges and universities to aid in the development of distance education platforms. 

• Prohibits the U.S. Department of Education from issuing regulations on the state authorization and gainful employment regulations until after Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act 

and permanently prohibits the promulgation of a federal definition 

of credit hour. 

BACKGROUND ON THE REPEALED REGULATIONS

Federal credit hour 

Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, federal student aid is awarded to students based on the number of academic 

credits in which they are enrolled each term. Historically, the U.S. 

Department of Education has relied on accrediting agencies to oversee how an institution of higher education defines a credit hour 

and assigns a specific number of credit hours to each course. The 

new federal regulation creates a federal definition of a credit hour, 

under which an institution of higher education has only two ways 

to ensure its students are enrolled in classes and earning the required credit hours. 

Under the first option, an institution must base its credit hour 

on the ‘‘Carnegie Unit,’’ the traditionally accepted definition for one 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

credit hour. Under this metric, one credit hour equals one hour of 

lecture and two hours of out-of-class work for approximately 15 

weeks for one semester or trimester or 10 to 12 weeks for one quarter. Under the second option, an institution must demonstrate an 

equivalent amount of coursework for other academic activities, 

such as laboratory work, internships, and practice, as established 

by the institution. 

State authorization 

Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, an institution of higher 

education seeking to participate in federal student assistance programs must be authorized to provide a postsecondary educational 

program within a state. Historically, the U.S. Department of Education allowed states to determine what requirements institutions 

of higher education must meet to carry out this requirement. The 

state authorization regulation mandates the following: • Established by Name. States must establish an institution of 

higher education by name. The institution established by name 

must comply with all applicable state approval or licensure requirements, unless exempted by the state based on its accreditation or 

having been in operation for at least 20 years. » Exemption if Institution is Established as a Business or 

Charity. If a state establishes an institution of higher education as a business or charity (not established by name), the 

institution must be approved or licensed to offer postsecondary 

programs and may not be exempt from the approval process 

based on accreditation, years in operation, or other comparable 

exemption. » Impact on Religious Institutions. States may exempt religious institutions from state authorization processes by nature 

of their religious affiliation. A ‘‘religious institution’’ is narrowly defined as one that is ‘‘owned, controlled, operated, and 

maintained’’ by a religious corporation and awards only religious degrees or certificates. 

• Distance Education. An institution offering distance education 

courses must be able to document it is authorized by any state in 

which it would otherwise be subject to state jurisdiction. This provision raised questions as to whether online programs must be authorized in every state in which they have enrolled students. On 

June 5, 2012, the provision was struck down by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia because it was not a ‘‘logical 

outgrowth’’ of the rest of the proposed regulation. On April 16, 

2013, the department announced in the Federal Register its intentions to re-regulate on this issue. 

• Disclosure/Compliant Process. A college or university must disclose to current and prospective students information on filing complaints about institutions of higher education with an accreditor, a 

state approval or licensing agency, and any other appropriate state 

agency. States must have a process to review and act on complaints 

about institutions of higher education. Currently, all accreditors 

must have a process to review and act on complaints against institutions because they are responsible for institutional quality. The 

regulation requires states to duplicate this process. 

Because of continuing questions from states as to whether their 

laws are in compliance and confusion from institutions of higher 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

education, the department conditionally delayed implementation of 

the state authorization regulation on two separate occasions. The 

regulation is slated to go in effect on July 1, 2014. 

Gainful employment 

Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, proprietary institutions 

are permitted to participate in federal student aid programs as 

long as their programs prepare students for ‘‘gainful employment 

in a recognized occupation.’’ Short-term programs offered at community colleges or other nonprofit colleges must also meet this requirement. The term ‘‘gainful employment’’ has been in the law 

since 1965, and Congress did not elaborate further when it reauthorized the law in 2008. The final regulation contains three separate components: 

Determination of Eligibility for Academic Programs: Programs 

are categorized as: (1) eligible for federal student aid; (2) eligible 

but restricted; and (3) ineligible for federal student aid based on 

debt-to-income ratio and loan repayment rate calculations. • Debt-to-Income Ratio Calculation. The debt-to-income ratio 

would be determined by examining the median annual loan payment made by students in the program compared to the average 

annual income of the same group of students over a three-year period. Two types of income would be compared to the median debt 

level of each program: actual income, which reflects the average 

annual income of students in a particular program, and discretionary income, which is defined as the difference between the average annual income of the program’s students and 150 percent of 

poverty. 

Under the regulation, the debt-to-income ratio would be ‘‘reasonable’’ if the median annual loan payment amount for a program’s 

graduates is less than 12 percent of the average annual earnings 

for these same students and less than 30 percent of the graduates’ 

discretionary income. The income data required for this calculation 

would be provided to the U.S. Department of Education by the Social Security Administration at the program level rather than on 

a student-by-student basis. 

• Loan Repayment Rate Calculation. The loan repayment rate 

would be based on the number of graduates in active loan repayment, defined by examining the average percentage of former students who have reduced the principal on their federal loans over 

a four-year period. Borrowers who are in a repayment plan in 

which their principal is not being reduced—which is common 

among new graduates—would not be counted as in repayment on 

their loans, despite the fact those borrowers would be in good 

standing and not in delinquency or default on their loans. For purposes of the loan repayment rate calculation, the department believes a program would have a ‘‘reasonable’’ repayment rate if more 

than 35 percent of its former students (graduates and those who 

dropped out) are in repayment. 

New Programs: The U.S. Department of Education is required to 

approve every new program created at a proprietary institution 

prior to the start of enrollment and institutions must comply with 

a number of new reporting requirements. 

Disclosure: All proprietary institutions and the nonprofit colleges 

and universities that offer short-term programs are required to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

make public the following set of data elements, much of which is 

different from what the federal government collects on all institutions of higher education: 

• Information Published on the Institution’s Website 

Æ Cost of the institutional program. 

Æ Median debt of the students over the past three years (including a separate identification of federal loans, private 

loans, and institutional loans). 

Æ Identification of the careers for which the institutional 

program is providing training. 

Æ On-time graduation rates. 

Æ Job placement rates. 

• Information Reported to the Department Annually 

Æ Each student who completed the institutional program. 

Æ The date the student completed the institutional program. 

Æ The amount of private and institutional loans received by 

the student. 

On June 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the department’s authority to regulate on gainful 

employment, but struck down the loan repayment rate calculation 

because the standard was chosen arbitrarily. The court struck 

down the debt-to-income ratio calculation because it was so closely 

intertwined with the repayment rate standard. The court also 

struck down the new program requirement. Finally, the court held 

that institutions are not required to report any data to the department under the disclosure requirements, but are required to make 

data public. On April 16, 2013, the department announced in the 

Federal Register its intentions to re-regulate on this issue. The negotiated rulemaking sessions are scheduled to start in early September 2013. 

Incentive compensation 

The Higher Education Act of 1965 prohibits institutions of higher 

education from paying any commission or bonus based on employees’ success in recruiting students if those employees are engaged 

in student recruitment, admissions, or student financial aid. Regulations for this provision used to include 12 ‘‘safe harbors,’’ or activities in which schools could engage without violating the incentive compensation ban. One of the safe harbors allowed for tuitionsharing agreements between institutions and third-party providers 

for recruitment activities. The U.S. Department of Education’s incentive compensation regulation eliminated all allowable safe harbors. 

On March 17, 2011, the department released informal guidance 

in the form of a ‘‘Dear Colleague Letter’’ (DCL) delineating acceptable activities. To address concerns voiced by smaller colleges and 

universities who use third-party providers for a variety of services, 

the DCL clarified that a tuition-sharing plan between a college and 

a third-party service provider does not violate the incentive compensation prohibition as long as the payment compensates an entity unaffiliated with the college or university making the payment. 

To further clarify the department’s position, the DCL provided several examples, one of which stated the third-party provider could 

not be affiliated with any other college or university, even if the afVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:47 Sep 13, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

1 Higher Education Opportunity Act § 492(a)(2)(F) 

2 Higher Education Opportunity Act § 1106 

filiated college has nothing to do with the third-party entity providing the services. 

COMMITTEE VIEWS

In late 2010 and early 2011, the U.S. Department of Education 

released several packages of regulations purportedly to improve the 

integrity of student financial aid programs, such as Pell Grants 

and federal student loans. Two of these so-called ‘‘program integrity’’ rules—the credit hour and state authorization regulations— 

expand the reach of the federal government into issues that are 

traditionally academic or state affairs. A third regulation—the 

gainful employment rule—harms job creation and imposes federal 

cost controls on institutions. The final regulation—the incentive 

compensation rule—hampers the ability of nonprofit colleges and 

universities to move coursework online. These regulations, combined, increase the regulatory burden on institutions, impede innovation, and expand the federal footprint on college campuses across 

the country, making it difficult for colleges and universities to focus 

on their true mission of educating students. 

History of examining regulatory red tape 

The committee has long championed bipartisan efforts to examine the regulatory burden imposed by the federal government on 

colleges and universities. In 2001, the committee introduced a firstof-its-kind, web-based tool to enable higher education stakeholders 

across the nation to participate in identifying ways to reduce red 

tape and bureaucracy for students, financial aid personnel, and colleges and universities. Known as the FED UP project, this bipartisan initiative, developed by Rep. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon (R– 

CA) and the late Rep. Patsy Mink (D–HI), was instrumental in fostering a more efficient and effective federal student aid system. 

The project solicited suggestions from the higher education community as to which provisions in the Higher Education Act, and corresponding regulations, should be changed or eliminated and why. 

More than 3,000 responses were received from loan professionals, 

financial aid officers, students, higher education associations, and 

concerned citizens. Congress and the department used the suggestions from this project to streamline regulatory and reporting requirements in 2002. 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, also included efforts to examine the federal regulatory burden on institutions of higher education. The HEOA required the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance to solicit comments from personnel working at 

colleges and universities about federal regulatory burdens and how 

to address them.1 The HEOA also required the National Research 

Council at the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to 

examine the regulatory burden on institutions of higher education.2

The committee is currently awaiting the results from the National 

Research Council. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

3 ‘‘Education Regulations: Weighing the Burden on Schools and Students,’’ hearing before the 

House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 112th Congress, 1st Session (March 1, 2011) 

(oral testimony of Christopher Nelson). 4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid. 

Recent efforts to examine regulatory red tape 

In the 112th Congress, the committee continued its efforts to 

streamline the federal regulatory burdens imposed on states, institutions of higher education, school districts, schools, and other entities impacted by the programs under its jurisdiction. In furtherance 

of this goal, the committee held a number of hearings that examined the regulatory burden imposed on schools, institutions, and 

students by the federal government. During these hearings, college 

presidents, accrediting agency heads, and students testified about 

the cost of complying with burdensome, overreaching federal laws 

and regulations. For example, during a March 1, 2011 hearing before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Christopher Nelson, the president of St. John’s College, testified about 

the harmful impact of excessive regulations on colleges and universities: 

The cost of compliance is large for institutions of all 

sizes, but particularly so for a school of our size that has 

no office of institutional research or staff dedicated to support that function. This means that literally dozens of people on our campus, myself included, assume this burden as 

part of our daily work.3

Mr. Nelson went on to discuss how the time spent by his faculty 

and other staff on reporting and compliance affects their ability to 

educate: 

When I step back from the mass of the more mundane 

record-keeping, reporting, and compliance environment, I 

try to see what the effect of all this is on our principal 

task, fulfilling our educational mission for the sake of our 

students. Every diversion or distraction from these primary purposes weakens our best attempts to achieve those 

ends.4

Finally, he offered a worthwhile suggestion, ‘‘As new requirements are created, get rid of some of the old at the same time. The 

concept would be something along the lines of a pay-go system for 

regulation that could be applied both to regulatory requirements 

and to data collection.’’ 5 The committee believes this is a sensible 

suggestion that the U.S. Department of Education should consider 

as it enters into future negotiated rulemaking sessions to improve 

student aid programs. Our goal should be to reduce, not increase, 

burdens. 

The credit hour regulation will shut down innovative programs for 

students 

The committee believes the new credit hour regulation, which 

creates a federal definition of credit hour for the first time, undermines the traditional role of institutions of higher education and 

may be harmful to students and their colleges and universities. By 

imposing a restrictive set of new requirements when measuring 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

6 ‘‘Education Regulations: Federal Overreach into Academic Affairs,’’ hearing before the House 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, 112th Congress, 1st Session 

(March 11, 2011) (oral testimony of G. Blair Dowden). 7 ‘‘Keeping College Within Reach: Improving Higher Education through Innovation,’’ hearing 

before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 113th Congress, 1st Session (July 

9, 2013) (written testimony of Pamela J. Tate). 

coursework, the regulation will stifle innovative teaching practices 

being developed by colleges and universities around the country, including accelerated learning programs. This will shut down the 

programs unemployed or underemployed workers rely on to gain 

the skills necessary to get back to work, jeopardizing the nation’s 

fragile economic recovery. 

The credit hour is at the heart of an academic decision. Institutions develop their credit hour policies and work with faculty to determine how many hours should be assigned to each course. Accrediting agencies then review each institution’s policy and assignment of credit hours for the programs. Many of the agencies avoid 

strict standards to maximize flexibility in accounting for differing 

institutional policies and developing innovative ways to deliver 

educational content. During the March 11, 2011 hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, members heard from numerous presidents of institutions of higher education and accrediting agencies who will be forced to comply with 

the new federal credit hour regulations when they go into effect 

this year. Dr. G. Blair Dowden, President of Huntington University, stated: 

For the credit hour, I think the definition is . . . confusing and how it relates to a variety of educational experiences that we offer at the institution including practicums 

and student teaching experiences and many other experiences that don’t include the formula of seat time and that 

might be difficult to find out an equivalency as proposed 

in the regulations.6

Ms. Pamela Tate, President and Chief Executive Officer for the 

Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, highlighted the flaws 

to students of maintaining a seat-based federal definition of credit 

hour during a July 9, 2013 hearing before the Committee on Education and the Workforce. She stated: 

The main policy issue is that, currently, federal financial 

aid programs like Pell grants and federal loans support 

only traditional time-based learning. The financial aid system under Title IV is not structured for an outcomes-based 

and assessment-based approach to postsecondary completion. It excludes assessment of prior learning fees, even 

though these fees significantly reduce the student’s overall 

student loan debt or the amount to be covered by Pell 

grants or other educational benefits.7

Across the country, institutions like Huntington University and 

Western Governors University (WGU), which use a competencybased model to award credit, are undertaking innovative and creative approaches to student learning. The committee believes the 

federal government should encourage more universities to adopt 

these models that are improving the higher education landscape. 

Under the federal credit hour regulation, WGU’s competencies are 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

8 ‘‘Management Information Report—Review of The Higher Learning Commission of the North 

Central Association of Colleges and Schools’ Standards for Program Length,’’ Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dep’t of Education, May 24, 2010. 9 ‘‘Education Regulations: Federal Overreach into Academic Affairs,’’ hearing before the House 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, 112th Congress, 1st Session 

(March 11, 2011), p. 67. 10 Ibid. (oral testimony of Ralph Wolff). 

relegated to exceptions, which could lead to accrediting bodies further questioning what they are doing and how they are doing it. 

While H.R. 2637, Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory Relief Act, repeals the federal definition of ‘‘credit hour,’’ it 

leaves in place two other components of the credit hour regulation. 

First, it retains the requirements for accrediting agencies to review 

institutional policies on credit hour. Second, it leaves in place requirements for states to examine institutional policies on credit 

hour as the state decides whether to grant authorization to institutions of higher education to operate in their state. These two requirements were tentatively agreed to during the U.S. Department 

of Education’s negotiated rulemaking session. While these remaining items still have challenges, the affected parties agreed to them 

in order to protect against potential fraud and abuse, and the Act 

does not change those regulations. 

Unfortunately, the federal definition of ‘‘credit hour’’ is the one 

issue on which the department did not abide by the tentative 

agreement reached by the negotiated rulemaking panel. In defense 

of this provision, the committee notes the department relies on an 

Inspector General report of the Higher Learning Commission 

(HLC) and its review of American InterContinental University,8

which was an isolated incident that does not represent a systemic 

problem in accreditation. 

During the March 11, 2011 Subcommittee on Higher Education 

and Workforce Training hearing, Rep. Rob Andrews (D–NJ) asked 

Ms. Kathleen Tighe, the department’s Inspector General, whether 

the issues she found in reviewing HLC represented one limited incident or a systematic problem and questioned whether the federal 

definition is a solution in search of a problem.9 The Inspector General pointed out that she had concerns with HLC’s practices, but 

that other accrediting agencies her office reviewed did not have 

similar problems. In his testimony before the subcommittee, Mr. 

Ralph Wolff, President of the Western Association of Schools and 

Colleges and one of the participants in the negotiated rulemaking 

session, pointed out that participants continually asked the department about the problems it was trying to solve. He noted the department kept relying on the isolated incident with HLC without 

citing any other examples, ‘‘We asked repeatedly at the negotiated 

rulemaking, what is the scope of this problem so that we could help 

define a resolution. And we were never told what the scope was, 

beyond this one incident.’’ 10

The state authorization regulation will jeopardize college access and 

completion 

The committee believes the new state authorization regulation 

imposes a one-size-fits-all requirement that will harm students and 

public and private colleges. In issuing the regulation, the federal 

government is overstepping its traditional role of utilizing the 

knowledge and expertise of states and accrediting agencies to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

11 Higher Education Act § 101(a)(2) 12 Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities vs. Arne Duncan. United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (June 5, 2012). 13 ‘‘Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Public Hearings,’’ 78 Federal Register 73 (16 April 

2013), pp. 22467–22469. 

measure and ensure institutional quality. The rule also infringes 

on the right of states to regulate their higher education systems 

and will likely require most, if not all, states to change how they 

currently authorize or license institutions of higher education to 

comply with the new requirements. For almost 50 years, the Higher Education Act included language that an institution of higher 

education participating in federal student aid programs must be 

authorized to provide a postsecondary educational program within 

a state.11 The state authorization regulation micromanages how 

states comply with this long-standing requirement. 

One of the more troubling aspects of the state authorization regulation is its consequences for distance education programs. Even 

though the requirement was struck down by the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,12 the Secretary of Education announced 13 his plans to re-regulate on this issue in the near future. 

Under the previous regulation, institutions of higher education that 

offer distance education programs may be forced to seek authorization in each state in which the students it serves live, no matter 

how small its presence. These institutions may be forced to comply 

with authorization requirements in multiple states, including paying new fees, which will increase the cost of providing a high-quality postsecondary education. Ultimately, these innovative colleges 

and universities may decide to stop serving students in a particular 

state, thereby denying access to students. Rural states may be the 

most affected by this regulation and an institution’s decision to 

forego authorization in states with limited populations. 

The rapid expansion of distance education demonstrates colleges 

and universities are utilizing new technology to provide cost-effective ways to deliver postsecondary education to students, especially 

nontraditional students. The distance education component of the 

state authorization regulation could put this new, innovative tool 

in jeopardy, reducing options for students without the resources or 

time to attend a traditional college or university. Fewer students 

with access to postsecondary education mean fewer graduates entering the workforce with the skills necessary to meet local economic demands. 

During the March 11, 2011 hearing, the Subcommittee on Higher 

Education and Workforce Training heard from Mr. John Ebersole, 

President of Excelsior College, an online institution of higher education. In his testimony, Mr. Ebersole discussed the burden the 

state authorization regulation will impose on his institution: 

We do know we have put money in our budget for compliance and we estimate that at our institution by the time 

we hire the additional staff that will be necessary to coordinate this and we pay the fees which each of these 

states requires we are going to have an annual recurring 

cost of somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000 which 

when multiplied by the number of institutions that offer 

online programs today, we are talking about an additional 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

14 ‘‘Education Regulations: Federal Overreach into Academic Affairs,’’ hearing before the 

House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, 112th Congress, 1st Session 

(March 11, 2011) (oral testimony of John Ebersole). 15Mendenhall, Robert W., Western Governors University. Letter to Chairman John Kline, 

House Committee on Education and the Workforce. July 22, 2013. <http://edworkforce. 

house.gov/UploadedFiles/Dr_Mendenhall_Support_Letter_for_H_R_2637.pdf>. 16 ‘‘Education Regulations: Federal Overreach into Academic Affairs,’’ hearing before the 

House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, 112th Congress, 1st Session 

(March 11, 2011) (oral testimony of G. Blair Dowden). 17 Ibid. 

cost which will eventually be passed to students of $500 

million.14

In a letter sent to the committee on July 22, 2013, Dr. Robert 

Mendenhall, President of Western Governors University, discussed 

the cost the state authorization regulation has already had on his 

campus. He stated, ‘‘Simply put, State Authorization has cost WGU 

more than $1,000,000 over the past two-years. Those precious dollars could have been spent much more effectively on students.’’ 15

The overriding consequence of the new regulation will be to put 

postsecondary education out of reach for students, many of whom 

are low-income or disadvantaged. In this tough economic climate, 

the federal government needs to put forward policies that improve 

college access and completion, thereby helping more skilled individuals enter the workforce. Instead, it is pushing policies that will 

deny students the ability to gain the skills necessary to succeed in 

the global economy. 

The Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

also heard during the March 11, 2011 hearing about the negative 

consequences the state authorization regulation would have for private or religious colleges. The new federal requirements could force 

states to exercise unprecedented authority over private colleges and 

universities, going far beyond granting the authority to operate as 

postsecondary institutions. Dr. G. Blair Dowden, President of Huntington University, highlighted his concerns with the new requirement, stating, ‘‘My concern is that there appears to be no limits to 

what factors a state can consider when granting or withholding authorization and no mechanisms for appeal or due process.’’ 16

He went on to discuss the extremely narrow definition of ‘‘religious institution’’ included in the regulation and pointed out that 

most religiously affiliated institutions would not qualify for the exemption, consequently opening the institution up to unwarranted 

state interference: 

. . . the possibility exists that certain states may use this 

new state authorization requirement as leverage to achieve 

their own higher education policy agenda at the expense of 

institutional missions. For instance, a state could require 

a certain curriculum or text books in order to gain authorization potentially violating both the academic prerogatives and religious convictions of the institutions.17

These consequences clearly go beyond the existing federal requirement that states grant authority to operate as a postsecondary institution within the state, threatening the academic freedom and mission of private colleges and universities. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

18 Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities vs. Arne Duncan. U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia. (June 30, 2012). 19 ‘‘Keeping College Within Reach: Enhancing Transparency for Students, Families, and Taxpayers,’’ hearing before the House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, 

113th Congress, 1st Session (April 24, 2013) (oral testimony of Alex Garrido). 

The Gainful Employment Regulation stifles job creation 

The committee strongly opposes the gainful employment regulation as an unprecedented attack on the proprietary sector of higher 

education that will limit student choice and jeopardize local economic and workforce development. Instead of working with Congress during the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education 

Act, the department proposed and finalized a regulation that contained a complex matrix of metrics involving debt-to income ratios 

and loan repayment rates. The regulation also gave unprecedented 

authority to the U.S. Secretary of Education to approve each new 

program created by a proprietary institution, taking away these institutions’ ability to remain flexible to ensure their academic offerings meet the needs of the local economy. Finally, the regulation 

imposes new, burdensome disclosure requirements on all programs 

at proprietary institutions and select short-term programs at nonprofit institutions—information that is, in some cases, different 

from what colleges are already required to make public through the 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). 

The committee notes the House of Representatives has been clear 

in its opposition to the promulgation of this regulation. On February 18, 2011, the House voted to prohibit the secretary from regulating on gainful employment by a strong bipartisan vote of 289 

to 136, including members of the Republican and Democratic leadership. On July 13, 2012 and April 18, 2013, a bipartisan group of 

members sent letters urging the secretary to abandon his plan to 

re-examine the flawed gainful employment regulation and work 

with Congress. Despite these efforts and a federal court ruling 

striking down the bulk of the regulation,18 the department recently 

announced plans to convene a negotiated rulemaking panel to revise the regulation; the panel is expected to meet and begin consideration in September 2013. This shortsighted action will surely result in another round of legal proceedings and continuing instability for students at career colleges, most of whom seek the skills 

necessary to retain or access employment. The committee strongly 

urges the secretary to abandon his efforts to re-regulate this flawed 

regulation and work with Congress to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. 

While supportive of efforts to increase institutional transparency, 

the committee believes the federal government needs to streamline 

and develop consistent disclosure requirements across all institutions, not just proprietary colleges. As demonstrated by Mr. Alex 

Garrido, the student veteran witness who testified during the April 

24, 2013 Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training hearing, students do not utilize the vast federal resources available online when looking for a college. Instead they frequently visit 

the college, look at the website, and talk to friends when selecting 

their institution.19 Mr. Garrido stated, ‘‘After selecting the schools 

I was interested in, I began to visit the campuses and speak to admissions advisors. I wanted to get a feel for the environments of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

20 ‘‘Keeping College Within Reach: Enhancing Transparency for Students, Families, and Taxpayers,’’ hearing before the House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, 

113th Congress, 1st Session (April 24, 2013) (written testimony of Alex Garrido). 21 ‘‘The Gainful Employment Regulation: Limiting Job Growth and Student Choice,’’ joint 

hearing before the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus 

Oversight, and Government Spending, 112th Congress, 1st Session (July 8, 2011) (written testimony of Harry C. Alford). 

each individual school and this is hard to gauge solely from school 

websites.’’ 20

If federal policymakers hope to help students make informed decisions about their postsecondary pathways, then Congress needs 

to scale back the amount of information it requires institutions to 

disclose to the public and make sure that information is consistent 

and helpful to the consumer: students and families. 

As has been discussed at length since the rule’s initial release, 

the gainful employment regulation has a number of unintended 

and harmful consequences for institutions, students, and working 

adults. Despite the claims of the administration and opponents of 

private sector education, the regulation will harm economic development in communities across the country. Many of the institutions harmed by this regulation are students’ last hope as they try 

to gain new skills or update their skills to enter into the workforce. 

The true harm to students will come to those smaller to mid-sized 

institutions that do not have the same resources as bigger institutions to deal with the regulations. Many of these schools operate 

in areas that are underserved by other colleges and universities. 

During a joint hearing held on July 8, 2011 between the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training and the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on 

Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, and Government Spending, 

Mr. Harry Alford, President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Black Chamber of Commerce stated: 

The black owned businesses that I represent rely on 

graduates of proprietary colleges targeted by the recent 

Gainful Employment Rule. These proprietary colleges 

serve minority, low-income, and high-risk students at 

much greater numbers than traditional four-year institutions and have more success doing it.21

The committee believes students should have the ability to 

choose a higher education institution that best meets their unique 

needs. That choice should not be undermined by an arbitrary regulation proposed and enforced by federal bureaucrats. 

The Incentive Compensation Regulation should encourage higher 

education innovation 

The committee believes the U.S. Department of Education’s effort 

to clarify the role of third-party providers in the incentive compensation regulation has hampered competition and picked winners 

and losers in the higher education marketplace. Independent thirdparty providers are permitted to engage in tuition-sharing plans 

with other universities, but affiliated third-party providers, including those held by private companies that may also own institutions, 

are not allowed to continue the business practice. Many of these affected third-party entities help nonprofit public and private instituVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:01 Sep 13, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

tions develop online platforms for their courses; these institutions 

would not be able to afford such costs if a large up-front fee for 

services was charged. The statute must be changed to ensure the 

regulation and sub-regulatory guidance to not discourage innovation in higher education and instead restore competition in the 

postsecondary marketplace. 

The language included in H.R. 2637 is nearly identical to H.R. 

2525, the Collaborative College Services Act, introduced by Reps. 

Matt Salmon (R-AZ) and Rob Andrews (D-NJ). The legislation 

would ensure all third-party service providers are treated the same 

in the eyes of the law, regardless of whether those providers are 

affiliated with another college or university. 

Current protections against fraud and abuse 

The committee takes its responsibility to protect the accountability of federal funds seriously. The committee notes the Higher 

Education Act already includes numerous provisions to prevent 

waste, fraud, and abuse of federal student aid programs. The federal government—in partnership with accrediting agencies—conducts audits and program reviews. Institutions must stay below 

caps on cohort default rates and meet satisfactory academic 

progress standards, and report on a whole host of information regarding institutional and program quality. The law also makes 

clear states and accrediting agencies have an important role as 

part of the triad governing federal funds. 

While the ongoing conversations among states, accrediting agencies, and institutions may have started because these regulations 

pushed states and accreditors to pay more attention to their own 

duties, maintaining these burdensome regulations is likely to hamper innovation moving forward. Instead of setting a federal definition of credit hour, the U. S. Department of Education should leave 

it to accrediting agencies and institutions, which have a strong 

record of appropriately measuring academic quality. Rather than 

dictating to states how they must approve institutions to operate 

within their boundaries, the department should allow them to determine the best way to protect their citizens. Instead of singling 

out the proprietary sector for additional regulation, the department 

should increase transparency for all colleges and universities. 

Conclusion 

Instead of protecting students from fraud and abuse, the credit 

hour, state authorization, gainful employment, and incentive compensation regulations are clear examples of federal overreach into 

the academic affairs of states, accrediting agencies, and public and 

private institutions of higher education. These unnecessary regulations will impose additional regulatory burdens on colleges and universities, which could lead to higher costs being passed down to 

low-income and disadvantaged students. More importantly, students who are looking to gain the skills necessary to succeed in the 

workforce will be denied access to innovative instructional programs that will keep us competitive in the global economy. 

A broad array of organizations, representing a diverse group of 

colleges and universities, support this legislation because they 

know it promotes access to an affordable postsecondary education. 

The higher education institutions and organizations include the: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, Association 

of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, Council for Christian 

Colleges & Universities, Council for Higher Education Accreditation, Excelsior College, Middle States Association of Colleges and 

Schools—Commission on Higher Education, National Association of 

Independent Colleges and Universities, National Association of 

Student Financial Aid Administrators, New England Association of 

Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools—The 

Higher Learning Commission, Northwest Commission on Colleges 

and Universities, Rebuilding America’s Middle Class, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools—Commission on Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges—Accrediting Commission 

for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools 

and Colleges—Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and 

Universities, and Western Governors University. 

H.R. 2637, Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory 

Relief Act, ensures colleges and universities are able to focus their 

energy and resources on educating students. Congress and the administration should focus on increasing educational opportunities 

for students and streamlining federal regulations that inhibit innovation in higher education. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

States the short title as the ‘‘Supporting Academic Freedom 

through Regulatory Relief Act.’’ 

Section 2. Regulatory relief 

Repeals the state authorization regulation. 

Repeals the definition of the term ‘‘credit hour’’ in regulation. 

Repeals the gainful employment regulation. 

Prohibits the Secretary of Education from issuing regulations on 

state authorization or gainful employment for the purposes of carrying out the Higher Education Act of 1965 until such time when 

Congress reauthorizes the Act. 

Prohibits the Secretary of Education from defining the term 

‘‘credit hour’’ for the purposes of carrying out the Higher Education 

Act of 1965. 

Section 3. Third party service providers 

Amends the statute to clarify the incentive compensation regulation to ensure third-party service providers affiliated with institutions of higher education are allowed to enter into tuition-sharing 

agreements with nonprofit colleges and universities to aid in the 

development of distance education platforms. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute, are explained in the body of this report. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch. H.R. 2637 repeals the credit hour, state authorization, and gainful employment 

regulations, amends the statute to clarify the incentive compensation regulation, and prohibits the U.S. Department of Education 

from issuing related regulations until after Congress reauthorizes 

the Higher Education Act. 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement of whether the 

provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. This 

issue is addressed in the CBO letter. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 2637 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of 

House Rule XXI. 

ROLL CALL VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for each record vote 

on a motion to report the measure or matter and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the total number of votes 

for and against and the names of the Members voting for and 

against. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 22 here HR205.001

Date: 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE RECORD OF COMMITTEE VOTE 

Roll Call: Bill: H.R. 2637 Amendment Numher: 2 

Disposition: Defeated by a vote of 13 yeas and 22 nays 

Sponsor/Amendment: Mr. Bishop, Mr, Hinojosa! Strike the prohibition on the Department of Education from establishing 

protections for students and safeguards for taxpayer dollars 

.-~- _."-------"---------,--,--

Slate A:-l' '\i~IlW &. <;;'t;lt~ Ale '0 

Mt". KLINE ('YIN) (Chairman) X Mr. MILLER (CA) (Ranking) X 

Mt". PETRI (WI) X Mr. ANDREWS (NJ) X 

Mf. McKEON (CA) X Mf. SCOTT (V A) X 

Mr. WILSON (SC) X Mr. IIINOJOSA (TX) X I Mrs. FOXX (NC) X Mrs. McCARTHY (NY) 

:VlL PRICE (GA) X Mr. TIERNEY (MA) X 

Mr. MARCHANT (TX) X Mr. HOLT (NJ) 

Mr. HUNTER (CA) X I Mrs. DAVIS (CA) X 

Mr. ROE (TN) X Mr. GRlJAL V A (AZ) X 

--

YmmS 

X 

X 

._-j--

Mr. THOMPSON (PA) X Mr. BISHOP (NY) X 

Mr. WALBERG evIl) X I Mr. LOEB SACK (IA) X 

Mr. SALMON (AZ) X Mr. COURTNEY (CT) X ". 

Mr. GUTI-IRIE (KY) X Ms. FUDGE (01-1) X 

Mr. DesJARLAIS erN) X Mr. POLIS (CO) X ---_._-" 

Mr. ROKITA (IN) ! X Mr. SABLAN (MP) X 

Mt". BUCSIlON (IN) X Mr. Y ARMUTH (KY) I X 

:VIr. GOWDY (SC) X Ms. WILSON (FL) X 

Mr. BARLETTA (PA) ~J Ms. BONAMICI (OR) X 

Mrs. ROBY (AL) X 

Mr.IlECK(NV) X ---" 

Mrs. BROOKS (IN) X 

M1". HUDSON (NC) X 

Mr. MESSER (IN) X 

TOTALS: Aye: 13 No: 22 Not Voting: 6 

Total: 41/ Quorum: 14/ Report: 21 
22 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 23 here HR205.002

Date: 24, 2013 

COMMITTEE ON EDLICATION AND THE WORKFORCE RECORD OF COMMITTEE VOTE 

Roll Call: 2 Bill: H.R. 2637 Amendment Number: 

Disposition: Ordered favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a vote of22 yeas and 13 nays. 

Sponsor/ Amendment Mr. Petri - motion to report the bill to the House with an amendment and with the recommendation 

that the amendment be agreed to, and the bill as amended do pass 

& :-;tclt,: t\\. ;\JIl1C &: Stlll~ .\j.~ 

-- ------_. Mr. KLINE (MN) (Chairman) X Mr. MILLER (CA) (Ranking) X 

Mr. PETRI (WI) X Me ANDREWS (NJ) X 

Mr. McKEON (CA) X Mr. SCOTT (V A) X 

Mr. WILSON (SC) X Me IIlNOJOSA (TX) X 

Mrs. FOXX (NC) X Mrs. McCARTHY (NY) 

Mr. PRICE (GA) X Mr. TIERNEY (MA) X I 

M1'. MARCHANT (TX) X Mr. HOLT (NJ) 

Mr. HUNTER (CA) X Mrs. DAVIS (CA) X 

Mr. ROE (TN) it Mr. GRLlAL V A (AZ) X 

Mr. THOMPSON (PA) Mr. BISHOP (NY) X 

M1'. WALBERG (MI) X Mr. LOEB SACK (lA) X 

M1'. SALMON (AZ) X Me COURTNEY (CT) X I M1'. GUTHRIE (KY) X Ms. FUDGE (Oil) X 

'v1L DesJARLAIS (TN) X M1'. POLIS (CO) X 

M1'. ROKITA (IN) : X 1 . SABLA~(tv1P) 

M1'. I3UCSHON (IN) X Mr. Y ARMUTH (KY) 

Mr. GOWDY (S(,) X Ms. WILSON (FL) X 

Me. BARLETTA (PA) X Ms. BONAMICI (OR) X 

Mrs. ROBY (AL) X 

M1'. llFiCK (NV) X ------

Mrs. BROOKS (IN) X 

M1'. HUDSON (NC) X 

\~:'::" 

.-

X 

X 

X 

X 

Mr. MESSER (IN) X ------- ,.L __ . 

TOTALS: Aye: 22 No: 13 Not Voting: 6 

Total: 41 I Quorum: 14 I Report: 21 
23 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the goals of 

H.R. 2637 are to reduce the federal government’s overreach into 

postsecondary academic affairs and help increase access to higher 

education for our nation’s most disadvantaged students. The Committee expects the Department of Education to comply with these 

provisions and implement the changes to the law and regulations 

in accordance with these stated goals. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 2637 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The committee estimates that enacting H.R. 2637 does not specifically direct the completion of any specific rule makings within 

the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

body of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

Committee has received the following estimate for H.R. 2637 from 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 30, 2013. 

Hon. JOHN KLINE, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2637, the Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory Relief Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Justin Humphrey. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

H.R. 2637—Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory Relief Act 

H.R. 2637 would repeal three regulations previously published by 

the Department of Education and prohibit future rulemaking in 

those areas. It also would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 

(HEA) to permit institutions of higher education to make certain 

payments to third parties for student recruiting services. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2637 would not have any significant impact on the federal budget. 

The bill would repeal regulations that require institutions of 

higher education to be authorized by the state or states in which 

they offer a curriculum. It also would repeal regulations that require certain institutions of higher education to meet benchmarks 

related to the repayment of student loans and debt-to-income ratios 

of former students in order to be eligible to participate in the federal student aid programs (this rule is commonly referred to as 

‘‘gainful employment’’). The bill would prohibit the department 

from defining or enforcing rulemaking related to these terms until 

the Congress extends the authorizations in the HEA for at least 

two years. 

A federal court invalidated portions of both of the rules described 

above, and the Department of Education has announced that it is 

restarting the negotiated rulemaking process to develop new rules. 

Thus, CBO assumes that neither rule is currently in effect and that 

repealing the rulemaking would have no impact. Finally, the bill 

would repeal a rule that defines the term ‘‘credit hour’’ and would 

prohibit the department from defining or enforcing rulemaking related to this term any time after the date of enactment of H.R. 

2637. 

Enacting the bill could affect discretionary spending for Pell 

grants and direct spending for student loans and Pell grants; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that 

the effects on both direct spending and discretionary spending 

would be insignificant for each year and over the 2013–2023 period. 

Enacting the bill would have no impact on revenues. 

H.R. 2637 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Justin Humphrey. 

This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the costs 

that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 2637. However, clause 

3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not 

apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—STUDENT ASSISTANCE 

* * * * * * * 

PART G—GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO STUDENT ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 487. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS. 

(a) REQUIRED FOR PROGRAMS OF ASSISTANCE; CONTENTS.—In 

order to be an eligible institution for the purposes of any program 

authorized under this title, an institution must be an institution of 

higher education or an eligible institution (as that term is defined 

for the purpose of that program) and shall, except with respect to 

a program under subpart 4 of part A, enter into a program participation agreement with the Secretary. The agreement shall condition the initial and continuing eligibility of an institution to participate in a program upon compliance with the following requirements: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(20) The institution will not provide any commission, bonus, 

or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial aid to any persons or 

entities engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions regarding the award of student financial assistance, except that this paragraph shall not apply 

to the recruitment of foreign students residing in foreign countries who are not eligible to receive Federal student assistance. 

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an institution described in section 101 may provide payment, based on the 

amount of tuition generated by the institution from student enrollment, to a third-party entity that provides a set of services 

to the institution that includes student recruitment services, regardless of whether the third-party entity is affiliated with an 

institution that provides educational services other than the institution providing such payment, if— 

(A) the third-party entity is not affiliated with the institution providing such payment; 

(B) the third-party entity does not make compensation 

payments to its employees that are prohibited under this 

paragraph; 

(C) the set of services provided to the institution by the 

third-party entity include services in addition to student recruitment services, and the institution does not pay the 

third-party entity solely or separately for student recruitment services provided by the third-party entity; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

(D) any student recruitment information available to the 

third-party entity, including personally identifiable information, will not be used by, shared with, or sold to any 

other person or entity, including any institution that is affiliated with the third-party entity. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(27) 

1Trends in College Pricing 2012, The College Board. 2Department of Education Budget Justifications. 

MINORITY VIEWS 

OVERVIEW

H.R. 2637 props open the door to waste, fraud and abuse within 

the Title IV system. The bill repeals three regulations that are intended to better ensure that students and taxpayers receive a quality education for their investment. It then restricts the Secretary 

of Education from issuing any new versions of these rules. It also 

codifies several loopholes in the nation’s long-time ban on incentive 

compensation. Lastly, the bill fails to offer constructive solutions or 

alternatives to these measures to ensure the integrity of federal investments in higher education. Laws and regulations for the effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars should be strengthened, 

not weakened or repealed, particularly in this tough budget environment. 

Now more than ever, the federal government has an obligation 

to students and taxpayers to ensure that there is a minimum 

standard of institutional eligibility for federal student aid. The cost 

of college continues to skyrocket; on average, in-state tuition and 

fees at a 4-year college increased by almost 4 percent a year in inflation adjusted dollars over the last decade.1 Additionally, more 

students are attending college and using federal student aid. In 

2013, the Department of Education will provide over $170 billion 

in grants, loans, and work-study assistance to students at institutions of higher education.2 It is imperative that federal laws and 

regulations ensure adequate accountability at our institutions of 

higher education. 

THE ‘‘TRIAD’’ REGULATORY STRUCTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND

THE FEDERAL ROLE

Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) authorizes the federal student aid programs and establishes a regulatory structure 

that includes three actors—the federal government, states, and accrediting agencies—known as the ‘‘triad’’. Because of concern about 

federal interference in school operations, curriculum, and instruction, the Department of Education (the Department) has relied on 

accrediting agencies and States to determine and enforce standards 

of program quality. The HEA recognizes the roles of the federal 

government, states, and accrediting agencies as providing a framework for a shared responsibility and for ensuring that the ‘‘gate’’ 

to student financial aid programs opens only to those institutions 

that provide students with quality education or training worth the 

time, energy, and money they invest. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

3 Ibid. 

4Section 481(a)(2)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

Although the Department relies on accrediting agencies to assess 

and certify program quality at institutions, the Department does 

perform an important oversight role. In particular, the federal government has a direct role in ensuring that the student aid programs are properly used by institutions and students. As the 

funder and operator of more than $170 billion in student aid,3 the 

federal government has a responsibility to ensure that institutions 

have policies and procedures that protect federal dollars, and are 

acting in the best interests of students and the taxpayers. 

Two of the rules repealed by H.R. 2637, the federal definition of 

a credit hour and state authorization, are written in a way that respects the current triad structure, providing for greater accountability through consistent definitions while relying on institutions, 

accreditors, and states as strong partners in ensuring such accountability for federal dollars. 

FEDERAL DEFINITION OF A CREDIT HOUR

H.R. 2637 repeals the regulatory definition of a credit hour and 

prohibits the Secretary of Education from promulgating any future 

rules that define a credit hour. 

The HEA defines an academic year for an undergraduate program as requiring a minimum of 24 semester or trimester credit 

hours or 36 quarter credit hours in a course of study.4 The amount 

of student financial assistance that can be awarded is based on the 

number of credit hours earned, but the term ‘‘credit hour’’ is not 

defined in the HEA. Therefore, the credit hour is not only the basic 

unit of an academic program at an institution of higher education; 

it is also the basic unit underlying the distribution of federal student aid. Yet, prior to the October 2010 regulation, this term had 

never been defined for federal aid purposes. 

INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON ‘EGREGIOUS’ CREDIT HOUR

POLICIES

A 2009 Alert Memorandum by the Department of Education Inspector General reported a lack of clear standards and policies in 

accounting for credit hours, as well as a questionable decision by 

one accrediting agency to accredit an institution which peer reviewers observed had ‘‘egregious’’ credit hour policies. The policy increased revenue to the institution, but raised the cost of higher 

education for their students, and for the taxpayer. 

Following the memorandum, the Department’s Inspector General 

conducted reviews at three of the seven regional accrediting agencies and found the oversight of institutional assignment of credit 

hours insufficient at all three agencies. These three agencies accounted for more than 70 percent of the Federal student aid funds 

awarded in 2009–10. The potential for a small number of unscrupulous institutions to exploit this lack of minimum standards led 

the Department to regulate in this manner to safeguard taxpayer 

funds. 

The Inspector General testified in front of the Committee on two 

occasions, on June 17, 2010 and March 11, 2011, to discuss her 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

5Sections 101(a)(2), 102(b)(1)(A)(ii)(B), and 103(c)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

as amended. 

findings in this matter. In both instances, she expressed the need 

for a federal definition of a credit hour in order to ensure that federal student aid dollars were protected from potential waste, fraud, 

and abuse. 

THE CREDIT HOUR REGULATION AND INNOVATION

The definition of a credit hour for federal purposes is necessary, 

in part, because more than $150 billion of federal financial aid is 

awarded annually based on an individual student’s enrollment, as 

represented in number of credits. The rule works to appropriately 

balance the need for accountability while providing the freedom for 

colleges to innovate and accommodate new technologies. 

The new regulations address vulnerabilities in the student aid 

programs that leave them open to fraud and abuse. The regulations 

are grounded in commonly accepted practice in higher education 

and do not intrude on core academic decisions made by institutions 

and their accrediting agencies. Additionally, the Department of 

Education took additional steps to broadly define a credit hour to 

provide more opportunities for colleges to experiment with new innovations and technologies. Experts have argued that some 

accreditors have been too conservative when allowing colleges to 

try new education models. The broadly defined credit hour definition opens the playing field for colleges to innovate. 

By repealing this moderate and flexible definition, H.R. 2637 significantly undermines accountability, transparency and consistency 

in the awarding of federal student aid at a time when more students are attending postsecondary education, using more federal 

student aid, and institutions of higher education are growing and 

adapting to meet student demands. 

H.R. 2637 takes a step beyond repealing the particulars of federal definition set in the regulation. The bill would prohibit the 

Secretary of Education from ever providing a federal definition of 

a credit hour. This prohibition would hinder the Secretary from addressing current or future issues of waste, fraud, and abuse without an act of Congress. Such a restriction would greatly limit the 

Secretary’s authority and ability to adequately and responsibly operate the federal student aid programs in the best interests of students and the taxpayers. 

The federal government must know families are getting what 

they paid for when borrowing thousands of dollars to pay for college. Democrats do not take this question lightly and this Congress 

must fully discuss the issue in the reauthorization of the Higher 

Education Act. 

STATE AUTHORIZATION

In order for students at an institution of higher education to be 

eligible for Title IV funds, an institution must be legally authorized 

by a State to provide a program of postsecondary education.5 This 

requirement has always been a part of the HEA, though there have 

been few specifics in regulations. In its issuance of regulations on 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

October 29, 2010, the Department specified how it will determine 

whether an institution is authorized by the State. 

H.R. 2637 repeals the state authorization rule issued in October 

2010. This repeal would completely eliminate the definition of state 

authorization, including consumer protection provisions stipulating 

that institutions are only considered to be authorized by a state if 

such state has a process to review complaints against the institution. 

H.R. 2637 would also prohibit the Department from promulgating or enforcing any rules related to state authorization until 

the successful reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Such a 

prohibition would bind the hands of the Secretary from ensuring 

program integrity within the federal student aid program. 

GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT

The Higher Education Act specifies that in order to obtain access 

to Title IV funds, public, private and proprietary colleges that offer 

career programs are required to ensure those programs adequately 

prepare students for ‘‘gainful employment in a recognized occupation’’. However, a common definition of ‘‘gainful employment’’ had 

not been established. In regulations published in 2011, the Department established a three part test for measuring a program’s effectiveness in preparing students for ‘‘gainful employment’’ in an effort to judge eligibility for Title IV funding. In addition, the new 

rules were designed to provide important consumer disclosures to 

help students make smart economic decisions given high college 

costs. 

By repealing gainful employment regulations, H.R. 2637 would 

eliminate critical consumer disclosures currently in effect that help 

students make more informed decisions about where to attend 

school. The bill would also prohibit the Department from promulgating or enforcing any rules related to gainful employment until 

the successful reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Such a 

prohibition would bind the hands of the Secretary from ensuring 

program integrity within the federal student aid program. 

INCENTIVE COMPENSATION

Incentive compensation allows colleges to reward college employees or individuals, through compensation or other means, for enrolling new students in their academic programs. Critics say it puts 

the financial interests of college employees or its partners before 

the needs of students. As a matter of transparency, when students 

discuss their enrollment with colleges they believe academic advisers are their advocates, not paid salesmen. 

Congress adopted the ban on incentive compensation in 1992 

with bipartisan cooperation, and has not acted to amend the statute since. The Bush Administration implemented a series of 12 regulatory loopholes, often referred to as ‘‘safe harbor provisions’’ to 

the incentive compensation statute in 2002, clearly outside of congressional intent. Studies conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the media and the Senate Health, Education, 

Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee have shown that far too 

often, unscrupulous colleges could use these loopholes to enroll stuVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:01 Sep 13, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR205.XXX HR205

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

dents, encourage them to max out their financial aid and then fail 

to deliver on the value proposition of a good education. In 2011, the 

Department of Education brought the regulations back in line with 

the original legislative intent by eliminating the loopholes established in 2002. 

H.R. 2637 would codify several of the 2002 loopholes directly into 

the Higher Education Act, providing companies the opportunity to 

return to deploying commissioned recruitment schemes. 

DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENT

Committee Democrats strongly believe that the Secretary must 

be able to respond to waste, fraud and abuse. Taxpayers expect 

proper oversight of the nearly $170 billion investment into student 

aid they make yearly. 

The Democratic amendment, offered by Representatives Bishop 

(D–NY) and Hinojosa (D–TX), would strike the prohibition on the 

Department of Education from establishing protections for students 

and safeguards for taxpayer dollars. Committee Republicans rejected the common sense amendment by a vote of 13–22. 

CONCLUSION

Now more than ever the federal government has an obligation to 

students and taxpayers to ensure that there is a minimum standard of institutional eligibility for federal student aid. H.R. 2637 

fails to meet that goal by repealing three regulations that are intended to better ensure students and taxpayers receive a quality 

education for their investment, restricting the Secretary’s ability to 

devise alternative measures, and codifying several loopholes in the 

nation’s long-time ban on incentive compensation. Furthermore, 

the bill fails to offer any constructive alternative solutions even 

while it ties the Secretary’s ability to act, thereby leaving students’ 

and taxpayers’ dollars vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse of federal programs. 

At a time when the higher education market is in so much flux, 

and the demand for student financial aid is growing, program integrity should be a top priority. Instead, H.R. 2637 moves backwards in accountability measures, lacks any alternative approaches, and fails to protect the nation’s students. 

H.R. 2637 is opposed by the following organizations, which work 

on behalf of students, consumers, veterans, faculty and staff, civil 

rights and college access and affordability: Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA); American Association of University Professors 

(AAUW); American Association of University Women (AAUP); 

American Federation of Teachers; Americans for Financial Reform; 

Association of the United States Navy (AUSN); Center for Law and 

Social Policy; Center for Responsible Lending; Consumer Action; 

Consumers Union; Crittenton Women’s Union; The Education 

Trust; Initiative to Protect Student Veterans; The Institute for College Access & Success; The Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights; Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA); 

League of United Latin American Citizens; Mississippi Center for 

Justice; National Association for Black Veterans, Inc. (NABVETS); 

National Association for College Admissions Counseling; National 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients); National Consumers League; National Education Association; The National Guard Association of the Association of the United States 

(NGAUS); NCLR (National Council of La Raza); New Economy 

Project (formerly NEDAP); NYPIRG; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Public Citizen; Rebuild the Dream; Service Employees International Union; United States Student Association; U.S. PIRG; 

Veterans Education Success; VetJobs; VetsFirst, a program of 

United Spinal Association; Veterans of America; and Young 

Invincibles. 

GEORGE MILLER. RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA. 

JARED POLIS. 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP. 

SUZANNE BONAMICI. 

FREDERICA S. WILSON. 

JOHN F. TIERNEY. 

JOE COURTNEY. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 

JOHN A. YARMUTH. 

GREGORIO KILILI SABLAN. SUSAN A. DAVIS. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS