PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 11, 2019
Protecting Undergraduates with Board Limitations from Influence and Conflicts Act or the PUBLIC Act
This bill revises provisions related to the recognition of an accrediting agency or association to preclude potential conflicts of interest.
Specifically, if an accrediting agency or association has a voluntary membership of institutions of higher education (IHE) and has as its primary purpose the accrediting of IHEs, it must be separate and independent of certain trade associations, membership organizations, and IHEs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
To be separate and independent, members of the accrediting agency or association may not be (1) chosen by the board or chief executive of any related trade association or membership organization, or (2) individuals who exercise substantial control over specified IHEs. Further, there must be at least one public member for every three members of the board of the accrediting agency or association. Dues paid to the accrediting agency or association must be paid separately from any dues paid to a related trade association or membership organization, and the budget of the accrediting agency must be developed and determined without consulting any other entity or organization.
People & committees
Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3] · D–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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: 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.4653 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.4653 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.4653 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.4653 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.