PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 21, 2012
College Cost Reduction Act of 2012 - Directs the Secretary of Education to establish the Higher Education Regulatory Reform Task Force to prepare a report, that is to be submitted to Congress and made available on a publicly accessible website, on federal regulatory requirements for institutions of higher education (IHEs).
Requires the report to contain: (1) a list of rules that are determined to be outmoded, duplicative, ineffective, or excessively burdensome; (2) an analysis of how the costs of such rules outweigh their benefits; (3) recommendations to consolidate, modify, simplify, or repeal such rules and a description of the justification for and impact of such recommendations; and (4) recommendations on establishing a permanent entity to review new regulatory requirements affecting IHEs.
Requires the President to submit to Congress a legislative proposal for carrying out some or all of the recommendations contained in the report. Includes, as part of that proposal, a requirement that the Secretary promulgate regulations requiring IHEs to control annual tuition increases and penalizing noncompliant schools.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Establishes congressional procedures to expedite consideration of the President's proposal.
People & committees
Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 14, 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.6557 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.6557 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.6557 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.6557 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.