PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 12, 2007
College Affordability and Accountability Act - Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to require state maintenance of effort in providing funding to public institutions of higher education (IHEs).
Requires all IHEs to plan, engage in, and report on cost containment strategies. Authorizes the Secretary of Education to conduct research on such strategies. Directs the Secretary to publish an annual report on college affordability and to disseminate certain data, including the net price tuition index (NTPI) for each IHE through a college price calculator on an enhanced college opportunities on line (COOL) website.
Establishes a Pell Plus program to provide an increased award to each Pell Grant recipient at IHEs that maintain specified types of: (1) low tuition; (2) guaranteed tuition; or (3) affordable tuition.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Establishes a program of grants for cooperative education for IHEs that restrain tuition increases.
Authorizes grants and contracts for cooperative education demonstration and innovation projects, training and resource centers, and research.
Directs the Secretary to commission the National Research Council to study the viability of developing and implementing standards in environmental, health, and safety areas to provide for differential regulation of: (1) industrial laboratories and facilities; and (2) research and teaching laboratories.
Authorizes the Secretary to select IHEs, IHE systems, or IHE consortia for voluntary participation in an articulation agreement demonstration program to specify the acceptability of courses in transfer toward meeting specific degree requirements, as a means to lower tuition prices for students.
Directs the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance to convene a task force of experts to: (1) determine the best methods to finance higher education in the long-term; (2) help public institutions utilize long-term budgeting; (3) review the trends of financing of higher education; and (4) define the role played by the states, the federal government, families, and outside entities in financing higher education, and determine the best methods to strengthen this partnership.
People & committees
Rep. Tierney, John F. [D-MA-6] · D–MA
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, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
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.2690 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.2690 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.2690 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.2690 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.