PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Aug 1, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on July 12, 2012. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Student Visa Reform Act - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to require that a person coming to study at a college, university, or language training program in the United States under a nonimmigrant student F-visa must attend an institution that is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of Education.
Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to require academic institutions (exempts seminaries or other religious institutions) to be similarly accredited for F-visa purposes if: (1) the institution is not already required to be accredited, (2) an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of Education is able to provide such accreditation, and (3) 25 or more F-visa foreign students are or will be pursuing a course of study at the institution.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive the accreditation requirement for an established college, university, or language training program that is otherwise in compliance with F-visa provisions and is making a good faith effort to satisfy the accreditation requirement.
Prohibits a person convicted of certain felony offenses, including human trafficking or visa fraud relating to an academic institution's participation in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), from having subsequent ownership or substantial authority at an academic institution participating in SEVP.
Provides a three-year exemption for students coming to study at a college or university that has been certified by the Secretary of Homeland Security but not yet accredited or denied accreditation by an accrediting agency.
People & committees
Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-16] · D–CA
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 the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 7/31/2012 H5504-5505)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 7/31/2012 H5504-5505)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5619)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Smith (TX) objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3120.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5504-5506)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 430.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-595.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-595.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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: Aug 10, 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.3120 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.3120 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.3120 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.3120 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.