PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Feb 28, 2012
Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act - Repeals certain Department of Education regulations that for purposes of determining whether a school is eligible to participate in programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA): (1) require institutions of higher education and postsecondary vocational institutions (except religious schools) to be legally authorized by the state in which they are situated, (2) delineate what such legal authorization requires of states and schools, and (3) define "credit hour."
Prohibits the Secretary of Education from promulgating or enforcing any regulation or rule that defines "credit hour" for any purpose under the HEA.
People & committees
Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 303 - 114 (Roll no. 79).
House roll call 79 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 303 - 114 (Roll no. 79).
House roll call 79 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 176 - 241 (Roll no. 78).
House roll call 78 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Capps motion to recommit. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment which adds a provision entitled "PROTECTING STUDENTS FROM HIGHER LOAN COSTS AND A DEVALUED EDUCATIONAL DEGREE".
Mrs. Capps moved to recommit with instructions to Education and the Workforce. (consideration: CR H995-996; text: CR H995)
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H988)
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 2117.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of amendments which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H992-997)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 2117 as unfinished business.
On motion that the committe rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Ms. Foxx moved that the committee rise.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Polis amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Foxx demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 563, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Polis amendment No. 5.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Bishop (NY) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Bishop (NY) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 563, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Bishop (NY) amendment No. 4.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 563, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Polis amendment No. 3.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 563, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Foxx amendment No. 2.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Grijalva amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Grijalva demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 563, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Grijalva amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 2117.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Candice S. Miller to act as Chairwoman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 563 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2117 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 563. (consideration: CR H980-992)
Rule H. Res. 563 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 563 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2117 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 116.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. H. Rept. 112-177.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. H. Rept. 112-177.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2117 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2117 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2117 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2117 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.