PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 16, 2006
Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to revise due process standards governing the accreditation process of educational institutions.
Requires accrediting agencies and associations to provide educational institutions with: (1) written notice of deficiencies and a reasonable time period to correct such deficiencies; (2) advance notice of any adverse action and an opportunity for a hearing; and (3) a right to appeal an adverse action to an independent and impartial arbitration panel.
Requires accrediting agencies and associations to: (1) ensure consistent application of accreditation standards to an educational institution's governing board in receivership; and (2) allow public access to meetings involving accreditation recommendations.
Authorizes the Secretary of Education to issue regulations to further define due process requirements for the accreditation process.
People & committees
Rep. Millender-McDonald, Juanita [D-CA-37] · 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 21st Century Competitiveness.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E177-178)
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.4795 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.4795 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.4795 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.4795 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.