PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 5, 2015
Proprietary Education Oversight Coordination Improvement Act
Establishes the Proprietary Education Oversight Coordination Committee to:
coordinate federal oversight of proprietary institutions of higher education (IHEs);
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
coordinate federal activities to protect students from unfair, deceptive, abusive, unethical, fraudulent, or predatory practices, policies, or procedures of proprietary IHEs;
encourage information sharing among federal agencies regarding federal investigations, audits, or inquiries of such IHEs;
increase coordination and cooperation between federal and state agencies to improve oversight and accountability of proprietary IHEs; and
develop best practices and consistency among federal and state agencies in the dissemination of consumer information regarding such IHEs.
Requires the Committee to: (1) meet at least once each quarter of each fiscal year; and (2) meet at least once each fiscal year, and otherwise interact regularly, with state attorneys general, state approval agencies, veterans service organizations, and consumer advocates.
Directs the Committee to submit, and make publicly available, an annual report to Congress that includes: (1) recommendations for legislative and administrative actions the Committees deems necessary to improve the enforcement of applicable federal laws, increase the accountability of proprietary IHEs to students and taxpayers, and ensure the promotion of quality education programs; and (2) specified financial and consumer information regarding such IHEs.
Requires the Committee, each academic year, to publish the For-Profit College Warning List for Parents and Students, which is to be comprised of proprietary IHEs:
that have engaged in illegal activity during the previous academic year as determined by a federal or state court;
that have entered into a settlement resulting in a monetary payment;
that have had any higher education program withdrawn or suspended; or
for which the Committee has sufficient evidence of widespread or systemic unfair, deceptive, abusive, unethical, fraudulent, or predatory practices, policies, or procedures that threaten the academic success, financial security, or general best interest of students.
People & committees
Rep. Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7] · D–MD
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 and Workforce Training.
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.
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.747 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.747 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.747 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.747 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.