PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 30, 2015
Protections and Regulation for Our Students Act or the PRO Students Act
This bill amends title IV (Student Assistance) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require proprietary institutions of higher education (IHEs) to derive at least 15% of their revenue from non-federal sources or risk becoming ineligible for title IV funding.
The legislation establishes a Proprietary Education Oversight Coordination Committee.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
IHEs and other postsecondary educational institutions must meet certain requirements regarding entrance counseling for first-time borrowers, disclosure of clinical training agreement terms, disclosure of a mandatory program review, and preparation of students upon successful program completion.
IHEs and other post-secondary educational institutions must not use revenues derived from federal educational assistance funds for recruiting or marketing activities.
It amends title IV program participation requirements to broaden the incentive compensation ban, to prohibit predispute arbitration agreements in student contracts, to establish certain institutional requirements related to student default risk, and to prohibit retaliation against whistleblowers who disclose institutional violations.
The Department of Education (ED) must establish a complaint tracking system, conduct mandatory program reviews of institutions that pose a significant risk of failing to comply with title IV requirements, and recalculate the cohort default rate and redetermine title IV eligibility for institutions that engage in default manipulation.
The legislation permits a federal student loan borrower or ED, on behalf of multiple borrowers, to assert an IHE's unlawful acts or omissions as an affirmative claim or defense against student loan repayment. It also permits ED to impose civil penalties on IHEs that engage in substantial misrepresentation or other serious violations.
Accrediting agencies or associations must not require institutions to enter predispute arbitration agreements with students.
People & committees
Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-41] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. 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.2192 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.2192 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.2192 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.2192 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.