SENATE BILL: THESE ARE REGIONAL ISSUES ACT (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE BILL:

To remove various federal regulations on schools and return them to the regions

Be it resolved in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

THESE ARE REGIONAL ISSUES ACT

SECTION I: NAME
a. This act shall be referred to as These Are Regional Issues Act

SECTION II: REGIONAL POWERS
a. The regulation prohibiting school lunches from containing more that one (1) cup of lima beans, peas, potatoes, or corn kernels per student per week is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.10 shall be amended accordingly.
b. The regulation prohibiting the hiring of a School Nutrition Program Officer unless they have a college degree is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(ii) & (iii) shall be amended accordingly.
c. The regulation prohibiting schools from offering 2% milkfat milk, whole milk, or chocolate milk or else lose School Breakfast and School Lunch programs funding is hereby eliminated.  7 CFR 210.10(c)(g) & 7 CFR 220.8(c)(g) & 7 CFR 215.7a shall be amended accordingly.
d. The regulation imposing arbitrary nutrition standards for snacks in school vending machines or else the school loses School Breakfast and School Lunch programs funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.11(a)(2) and 42 USC 1779 shall be amended accordingly.
e. Nothing in federal law shall be construed or interpreted as requiring Common Core State Educational standards in order to qualify for any federal education funding program, including but not limited race to the top grants.
f. The regulation implying that schools will be sued if neutral discipline policies show a disparate impact is hereby eliminated. The Dear Colleague Letter dated January 8, 2014 is hereby rescinded.
g. The regulation implying that colleges will be sued if they fail to reduce the burden of proof for campus disciplinary hearings below clear and convincing evidence is hereby eliminated. The Dear Colleague Letter dated April 4, 2011 is hereby rescinded.
h. The regulation mandating most college classes take attendance to assist in verifying if federal student loan recipients have dropped out is hereby eliminated.
i. The regulation disqualifying students convicted of drug crimes from most federal student aid programs is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1091(r)(1) shall be amended accordingly.
j. The regulation imposing certain crime reporting requirements on colleges shall not include crimes committed off-campus, including but not limited to privately operated book stores. 34 CFR 668.46 shall be amended accordingly.
k. The regulation imposing certain crime reporting requirements on colleges shall not be required for the crimes of "stalking", "domestic violence", and "dating violence", until such time that the Department of Justice provides a definition of each crime, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
l. The regulation poorly defining "credit hour" in the context of classes eligible for the student loan program is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 600.2 shall be amended accordingly.
m. The regulation mandating colleges compile and publish certain employment data about previously enrolled students or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.401 - 668.415 shall be amended accordingly.
n. The regulation mandating college financial solvency as measured by an arbitrary composite score or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.171 - 176 shall be amended accordingly.
o. The regulation mandating colleges offering online classes receive certification from every single state students enroll from instead of just the state the college is physically located in or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 cfr 600.9 shall be amended accordingly.
p. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a breakdown on the racial breakdown of the student body to each student or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1092(a)(1)(Q) shall be amended accordingly.
q. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a copy of their peer-to-peer file sharing policy along with government propaganda warning of the illegality of certain copyright violations or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.14(b)(30), 34 CFR 668.43(a)(10), 20 USC 1092(a)(1)(P) and 20 USC 1094(a)(29) shall be amended accordingly.
r. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a copy of their vaccination policy disclosure to each student or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated.  20 USC 1092(a)(1)(V) shall be amended accordingly.
s. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a voter registration form to each student or else lose federal funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1094(a)(23) shall be amended accordingly.

SECTION III: TIMING
a. This act shall take effect July 4, 2020.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

Sponsor: NC Yankee for Mr. R.
Senate Designation: SB 18:19

[Sestak]

This is ridiculous amounts of education deregulation, gutting of the Education Subdepartment, and other far-right policy proposals wrapped up in the guise of 'regionalizing".


D is basically just the whole "Let's dunk on Obama-era school lunch health requirements because we don't like Michelle Obama" thing that used to be big on the right a few years back.

H eliminates attendance requirements for student loans, which looks to me like a deliberate attempt to sabotage the federal student loan program and justify future elimination.

J basically says that if a college student commits a crime directly against another college student off of college property, colleges should just do nothing. This includes actions taken at off-campus student housing. Intent is pretty obvious.

K is an attempt to make domestic violence go unpunished on college campuses.

O is a blatant attempt to allow for-profit scam schools to go unregulated and unchecked.

R is getting rid of basic public health requirements at colleges. Also I'd argue that every college student should have the right to know what is and isn't in violation of their school's vaccine policy.

Finally, S is a blatant, North Carolina GOP level attempt at voter suppression.

This should be killed.

[Vern]

How would S be voter suppression? Funding for a college should never be linked to if they give out voter registration or not.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have long thought that the regions should have most if not all education responsibility in this game for game play reasons. I Think they are best equipped to handle those discussions both in terms of the level of detail required and the amount of specific attention that certain areas might need attention in some regions but not in others. I have long said that there should be some policy areas that the regions have exclusive authority over and there was until recently anyway broad bipartisan support for moving in that general direction. I find it very troubling that labor is backsliding into its old centralist ways and it is disappointing that they are going to gin up RL oriented outrage as if the regions in game are going to be like the states in RL on this issue. Peanut is hardly Scott Walker. 

I do not support every provision of this bill though, for instance I do not support eliminating anything that reduces transparency and disclosure and will be offering an amendment to remove them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How would S be voter suppression? Funding for a college should never be linked to if they give out voter registration or not.

Plus why not just do something AVR and then who passes out registration forms and what penalties exist for not doing so would be rather irrelevant.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE BILL:

To remove various federal regulations on schools and return them to the regions

Be it resolved in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

THESE ARE REGIONAL ISSUES ACT

SECTION I: NAME
a. This act shall be referred to as These Are Regional Issues Act

SECTION II: REGIONAL POWERS
a. The regulation prohibiting school lunches from containing more that one (1) cup of lima beans, peas, potatoes, or corn kernels per student per week is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.10 shall be amended accordingly.
b. The regulation prohibiting the hiring of a School Nutrition Program Officer unless they have a college degree is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(ii) & (iii) shall be amended accordingly.
c. The regulation prohibiting schools from offering 2% milkfat milk, whole milk, or chocolate milk or else lose School Breakfast and School Lunch programs funding is hereby eliminated.  7 CFR 210.10(c)(g) & 7 CFR 220.8(c)(g) & 7 CFR 215.7a shall be amended accordingly.
d. The regulation imposing arbitrary nutrition standards for snacks in school vending machines or else the school loses School Breakfast and School Lunch programs funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.11(a)(2) and 42 USC 1779 shall be amended accordingly.
e. Nothing in federal law shall be construed or interpreted as requiring Common Core State Educational standards in order to qualify for any federal education funding program, including but not limited race to the top grants.
f. The regulation implying that schools will be sued if neutral discipline policies show a disparate impact is hereby eliminated. The Dear Colleague Letter dated January 8, 2014 is hereby rescinded.
g. The regulation implying that colleges will be sued if they fail to reduce the burden of proof for campus disciplinary hearings below clear and convincing evidence is hereby eliminated. The Dear Colleague Letter dated April 4, 2011 is hereby rescinded.
h. The regulation mandating most college classes take attendance to assist in verifying if federal student loan recipients have dropped out is hereby eliminated.
i. The regulation disqualifying students convicted of drug crimes from most federal student aid programs is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1091(r)(1) shall be amended accordingly.
j. The regulation imposing certain crime reporting requirements on colleges shall not include crimes committed off-campus, including but not limited to privately operated book stores. 34 CFR 668.46 shall be amended accordingly.
k. The regulation imposing certain crime reporting requirements on colleges shall not be required for the crimes of "stalking", "domestic violence", and "dating violence", until such time that the Department of Justice provides a definition of each crime, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
l. The regulation poorly defining "credit hour" in the context of classes eligible for the student loan program is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 600.2 shall be amended accordingly.
m. The regulation mandating colleges compile and publish certain employment data about previously enrolled students or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.401 - 668.415 shall be amended accordingly.
n. The regulation mandating college financial solvency as measured by an arbitrary composite score or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.171 - 176 shall be amended accordingly.
o. The regulation mandating colleges offering online classes receive certification from every single state students enroll from instead of just the state the college is physically located in or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 cfr 600.9 shall be amended accordingly.
p. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a breakdown on the racial breakdown of the student body to each student or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1092(a)(1)(Q) shall be amended accordingly.
q. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a copy of their peer-to-peer file sharing policy along with government propaganda warning of the illegality of certain copyright violations or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.14(b)(30), 34 CFR 668.43(a)(10), 20 USC 1092(a)(1)(P) and 20 USC 1094(a)(29) shall be amended accordingly.
r. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a copy of their vaccination policy disclosure to each student or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated.  20 USC 1092(a)(1)(V) shall be amended accordingly.
s. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a voter registration form to each student or else lose federal funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1094(a)(23) shall be amended accordingly.

SECTION III: TIMING
a. This act shall take effect July 4, 2020.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

This removes two clauses from the bill. One I think it would be prudent especially with interstate travel involved to have the vaccination policy disclosure. As for the removed clause, as for the other one, I think it would be helpful to have such information public to gleam some idea of the value from attending that university over another, though naturally it is not the only factor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE BILL:

To remove various federal regulations on schools and return them to the regions

Be it resolved in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

THESE ARE REGIONAL ISSUES ACT

SECTION I: NAME
a. This act shall be referred to as These Are Regional Issues Act

SECTION II: REGIONAL POWERS
a. The regulation prohibiting school lunches from containing more that one (1) cup of lima beans, peas, potatoes, or corn kernels per student per week is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.10 shall be amended accordingly.
b. The regulation prohibiting the hiring of a School Nutrition Program Officer unless they have a college degree is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(ii) & (iii) shall be amended accordingly.
c. The regulation prohibiting schools from offering 2% milkfat milk, whole milk, or chocolate milk or else lose School Breakfast and School Lunch programs funding is hereby eliminated.  7 CFR 210.10(c)(g) & 7 CFR 220.8(c)(g) & 7 CFR 215.7a shall be amended accordingly.
d. The regulation imposing arbitrary nutrition standards for snacks in school vending machines or else the school loses School Breakfast and School Lunch programs funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.11(a)(2) and 42 USC 1779 shall be amended accordingly.
e. Nothing in federal law shall be construed or interpreted as requiring Common Core State Educational standards in order to qualify for any federal education funding program, including but not limited race to the top grants.
f. The regulation implying that schools will be sued if neutral discipline policies show a disparate impact is hereby eliminated. The Dear Colleague Letter dated January 8, 2014 is hereby rescinded.
g. The regulation implying that colleges will be sued if they fail to reduce the burden of proof for campus disciplinary hearings below clear and convincing evidence is hereby eliminated. The Dear Colleague Letter dated April 4, 2011 is hereby rescinded.
h. The regulation mandating most college classes take attendance to assist in verifying if federal student loan recipients have dropped out is hereby eliminated.
i. The regulation disqualifying students convicted of drug crimes from most federal student aid programs is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1091(r)(1) shall be amended accordingly.
j. The regulation imposing certain crime reporting requirements on colleges shall not include crimes committed off-campus, including but not limited to privately operated book stores. 34 CFR 668.46 shall be amended accordingly.
k. The regulation imposing certain crime reporting requirements on colleges shall not be required for the crimes of "stalking", "domestic violence", and "dating violence", until such time that the Department of Justice provides a definition of each crime, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
l. The regulation poorly defining "credit hour" in the context of classes eligible for the student loan program is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 600.2 shall be amended accordingly.
m. The regulation mandating colleges compile and publish certain employment data about previously enrolled students or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.401 - 668.415 shall be amended accordingly.
n. The regulation mandating college financial solvency as measured by an arbitrary composite score or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.171 - 176 shall be amended accordingly.
o. The regulation mandating colleges offering online classes receive certification from every single state students enroll from instead of just the state the college is physically located in or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 cfr 600.9 shall be amended accordingly.
p. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a breakdown on the racial breakdown of the student body to each student or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1092(a)(1)(Q) shall be amended accordingly.
q. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a copy of their peer-to-peer file sharing policy along with government propaganda warning of the illegality of certain copyright violations or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.14(b)(30), 34 CFR 668.43(a)(10), 20 USC 1092(a)(1)(P) and 20 USC 1094(a)(29) shall be amended accordingly.
r. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a copy of their vaccination policy disclosure to each student or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated.  20 USC 1092(a)(1)(V) shall be amended accordingly.
s. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a voter registration form to each student or else lose federal funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1094(a)(23) shall be amended accordingly.

SECTION III: TIMING
a. This act shall take effect July 4, 2020.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Sestak]

Yankee, I find it interesting that you now are taking issue with this clause but said nothing when the exact same text passed the Senate as part of a larger bill earlier this month?

[fhtagn]

Everything I Don't Like is Far Right!

The Emotional Child's Guide to Political Discussion.

[Devout Centrist]

I will be voting against this bill.

Firstly, it's important to note that I disagree with the underlying philosophy behind deregulation. While I find many of these existing regulations to be wrongheaded and even silly, I am opposed to eliminating regulations as part of a larger package that includes dozens of other regulations, some of which are only tangentially related to the others. I would prefer to evaluate these on a case-by-case basis as it stands.

Secondly, there are legitimate concerns behind many of these regulations. Even if they aren't perfect, there's a greater problem that compels government attention. I would support a rewrite, but I cannot support wholesale elimination under these circumstances.

[ON Progressive]

Everything I Don't Like is Far Right!

The Emotional Child's Guide to Political Discussion.

Even by your standards, this is very bad faith.
Anyway, while I would support some of these regulations being appealed, for example the regulation that prevents those charged with drug crimes from getting most student aid, I'm against this bill as it stands. I have particular issues with J (which prevents colleges from doing anything about crimes that happen on off-campus housing) and K (which makes it harder to persue justice for victims of domestic violence on college campuses).

I also agree with what my colleague Devout Centrist has to say on deregulation as a whole, particularly as it applies to deregulation bills we've seen over the years.

[fhtagn]

Everything I Don't Like is Far Right!

The Emotional Child's Guide to Political Discussion.

Even by your standards, this is very bad faith.
Anyway, while I would support some of these regulations being appealed, for example the regulation that prevents those charged with drug crimes from getting most student aid, I'm against this bill as it stands. I have particular issues with J (which prevents colleges from doing anything about crimes that happen on off-campus housing) and K (which makes it harder to persue justice for victims of domestic violence on college campuses).

I also agree with what my colleague Devout Centrist has to say on deregulation as a whole, particularly as it applies to deregulation bills we've seen over the years.

That is literally what Sestak is doing. Tell your future party leader to stop sounding like a broken record if you have an issue with that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, I find it interesting that you now are taking issue with this clause but said nothing when the exact same text passed the Senate as part of a larger bill earlier this month?

Its called trying to find some common ground to advance regional control of education.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will be voting against this bill.

Firstly, it's important to note that I disagree with the underlying philosophy behind deregulation. While I find many of these existing regulations to be wrongheaded and even silly, I am opposed to eliminating regulations as part of a larger package that includes dozens of other regulations, some of which are only tangentially related to the others. I would prefer to evaluate these on a case-by-case basis as it stands.

Secondly, there are legitimate concerns behind many of these regulations. Even if they aren't perfect, there's a greater problem that compels government attention. I would support a rewrite, but I cannot support wholesale elimination under these circumstances.

I have no problem working with you on a rewrite. Here is the thing, I agree with you in some cases, I think for instance that financial regulation is very important to the economy and keeping it steady and growing for all people.

However, there are sometimes when I think regulation, perhaps well intentioned has had unexpected consequences, be it raising the cost of operating and thus shutting out smaller firms and leaving larger, unaccountable monopolies in their place that can buy up government officials, or providing the complex array of statute that special interests can manipulate behind closed doors to advance special breaks.

I think regulations can be important but I think the ones we have should be simple, should be purpose driven and be weighed against the costs of continuing them. A lot of the regulations that we have eliminated have been pointless or served no purpose to begin with.

On the bills like this, if it were any other issue, I would be opposed to cutting so deeply but in my opinion, from a game play perspective, the likes of Scott are better suited to handle education tailored to the needs of say Fremont then we are. It also goes back as I have said many times to a concern that I have had since the reset that we not make the same mistakes and opt to give the regions majority or even exclusive responsibility for some issue sets. Instead of sharing the wealth, it is sharing the activity if that makes sense.

I think we make a big mistake when we fail to consider these things from a game play perspective and there have been many times when people have said "IRL I would never support this, but here it strengthens the game so I am open to it".

Also as Ontario said, I agree that we shouldn't be denying aid for smoking weed when we have legalized weed for the most part.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have seen no objections in among all these texts, so the amendment is adopted.

[Devout Centrist]

I have no problem working with you on a rewrite. Here is the thing, I agree with you in some cases, I think for instance that financial regulation is very important to the economy and keeping it steady and growing for all people.

However, there are sometimes when I think regulation, perhaps well intentioned has had unexpected consequences, be it raising the cost of operating and thus shutting out smaller firms and leaving larger, unaccountable monopolies in their place that can buy up government officials, or providing the complex array of statute that special interests can manipulate behind closed doors to advance special breaks.

I think regulations can be important but I think the ones we have should be simple, should be purpose driven and be weighed against the costs of continuing them. A lot of the regulations that we have eliminated have been pointless or served no purpose to begin with.

I agree with you, insofar as rent seeking behavior is a consequence of poor regulation. There's obviously potential for unintended consequences from over regulation. My concern is, we're not talking about the unintended consequences of repealing these regulations. It's easy to point at certain regulations and say they're stupid. Some of them are products of moral crusades from days gone by. The Allegheny National Forest nudity regulation comes to mind.

But this bill eliminates a number of regulations that, quite honestly, are products of genuine reform to the education system. Repealing these regulations will not make it easier to do business nor will it decrease the potential for rent seeking behavior. I should point out that these are existing regulations, not implemented by us in game, but by the Federal Government pre-reset. Repealing these regulations would be us taking the initiative to do so, not a member of the game proposing their own new regulations.

On the bills like this, if it were any other issue, I would be opposed to cutting so deeply but in my opinion, from a game play perspective, the likes of Scott are better suited to handle education tailored to the needs of say Fremont then we are. It also goes back as I have said many times to a concern that I have had since the repeat that we not make the same mistakes and opt to give the regions majority or even exclusive responsibility for some issue sets. Instead of sharing the wealth, it is sharing the activity if that makes sense.

I think we make a big mistake when we fail to consider these things from a game play perspective and there have been many times when people have said "IRL I would never support this, but here it strengthens the game so I am open to it".

How is this going to increase activity? Is Scott going to issue his own 'Dear Colleague' letter? Are the regional governments now going to add a regulation that requires two vegetables in school lunches per student? By repealing these regulations, we are shifting more burden onto the regions at a time when they are still grappling with a number of important bills. I don't think it's prudent to repeal existing Federal code on regulation in the hopes that the regions will take up the slack.

This leads to my next point, which may be rather controversial. I don't think that increasing activity is, on its own, positive. Does it mean people are engaged in the game? Perhaps. It could also mean that bill writing has been outsourced to a few individuals who are ideologically motivated while the rest rubber stamp their bills. More than bills, we need discussion and debate. That cannot be produced so easily. It requires every legislator, from the Federal level down to the regions, to be engaged and vocal in their critiques of legislation.

I prefer having better discussion on fewer bills than more bills with little discussion. I want to personally apologize for not writing as many bills this cycle as I did in the House, but I want my efforts to produce something that generates meaningful interest and continues the conversation into the House of Representatives.

Moreover, repealing regulation offers no guarantee that the regions will actively try to implement new ones. I would rather rework these at the Federal level rather than pass the buck to already strained regional legislatures.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Increasing activity implies that said activity is generalized, not exclusive to a few people. If you have seen my preferred model for the Senate, you would know what I mean when I refer to "activity". Example 1, Example 2, and the biggest one Example 3 

Thirty or so bills passed, 70 to 100 amendments offered, most all of the debate threads were active with 5 to 7 Senators regularly involved in legislating. There two you had one man offering a crap ton of bills, but for the left and yet there was extensive debate on them and many other bills as well.

And yet while this was going on, as much as a majority of the regions were either in dire straits or barely limping along at the time, illustrating the problem of Federal gov't hogging all of the fun and interest.


The reason why the regions should have exclusive abilities on a couple of issue sets is because over the long haul we see a trend towards the Federal government "solving" problems and doing so at the expensive regional responsibilities.

Pre-reset, we had reached a point where there was confusion as to what if anything regions could address because of how much federal legislation had been done on so many issue fronts. The preferred approach since the reset, has been to move towards regional priority on domestic issues like say health and education while at the same time the Federal gov't can expand more into Foreign policy simulation, an area that prior to 2017 had not been very well explored.

The Regions may have a lot of bills now, but that doesn't mean that such will continue forever, especially if there are no limits on what can be solved federally and no issues that the regions have exclusive responsibility for.  Also

[Sestak]

I will say that, personally, I now actually feel totally fine handing more or less all policy on K-12 educations and running those education systems to the regions.

However, most of the regulations repealed in this have nothing to do with that. A lot of them focus on the federal student aid office - which I think should be kept intact - and reporting/transparency requirements for college or requiring them to investigate certain crimes etc. That is very different from the federal government actually "creating education policy".

The regions have no less control over the core of education policy now than they would after passing all of these provisions. The only real exception to that is Section (e), the repeal of Common Core. And I would note that this provision - as well as several others in the bill - already have have a good chance of passing in one of the Dumb Regs bills currently being entertained in the House.

[Devout Centrist]

Sestak echoed most of my points; ideally, K-12 education would be mostly under the control of the regions and at present, it is. I am not incredibly fond of Common Core, but the other regulations presented in this bill deal with higher education. Of those, I lean towards supporting them.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I will say that, personally, I now actually feel totally fine handing more or less all policy on K-12 educations and running those education systems to the regions.

However, most of the regulations repealed in this have nothing to do with that. A lot of them focus on the federal student aid office - which I think should be kept intact - and reporting/transparency requirements for college or requiring them to investigate certain crimes etc. That is very different from the federal government actually "creating education policy".

The regions have no less control over the core of education policy now than they would after passing all of these provisions. The only real exception to that is Section (e), the repeal of Common Core. And I would note that this provision - as well as several others in the bill - already have have a good chance of passing in one of the Dumb Regs bills currently being entertained in the House.

At the very least I would push back on the claim that requiring a college class already approved in 1 state to be approved by any state in which online students enroll even though that isnt the case if they enroll in physical classes doesn't reach the issue of regional control. Thats added bureaucracy that just increases the price of college.

[Sestak]

I will say that, personally, I now actually feel totally fine handing more or less all policy on K-12 educations and running those education systems to the regions.

However, most of the regulations repealed in this have nothing to do with that. A lot of them focus on the federal student aid office - which I think should be kept intact - and reporting/transparency requirements for college or requiring them to investigate certain crimes etc. That is very different from the federal government actually "creating education policy".

The regions have no less control over the core of education policy now than they would after passing all of these provisions. The only real exception to that is Section (e), the repeal of Common Core. And I would note that this provision - as well as several others in the bill - already have have a good chance of passing in one of the Dumb Regs bills currently being entertained in the House.

At the very least I would push back on the claim that requiring a college class already approved in 1 state to be approved by any state in which online students enroll even though that isnt the case if they enroll in physical classes doesn't reach the issue of regional control. Thats added bureaucracy that just increases the price of college.

I could perhaps be persuaded to support the removal of that requirement for nonprofit colleges only.

But I'm not really happy with it as currently written.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I will say that, personally, I now actually feel totally fine handing more or less all policy on K-12 educations and running those education systems to the regions.

However, most of the regulations repealed in this have nothing to do with that. A lot of them focus on the federal student aid office - which I think should be kept intact - and reporting/transparency requirements for college or requiring them to investigate certain crimes etc. That is very different from the federal government actually "creating education policy".

The regions have no less control over the core of education policy now than they would after passing all of these provisions. The only real exception to that is Section (e), the repeal of Common Core. And I would note that this provision - as well as several others in the bill - already have have a good chance of passing in one of the Dumb Regs bills currently being entertained in the House.

At the very least I would push back on the claim that requiring a college class already approved in 1 state to be approved by any state in which online students enroll even though that isnt the case if they enroll in physical classes doesn't reach the issue of regional control. Thats added bureaucracy that just increases the price of college.

I could perhaps be persuaded to support the removal of that requirement for nonprofit colleges only.

But I'm not really happy with it as currently written.

There is a private university in my town. Lots of students commute from carolina since we are right over the border. There is no rhyme or reason to allow that but forbid the exact same students from taking the exact same classes from the exact same college, online. This anti "forprofit" red herring just leads to generally bad policies. Public colleges have been very critical of the same rules because they are of General application and there is no real way to say "only bad forprofits must comply not good schools". Even then, I have friends with more valuable technical degrees from forprofit vocational schools than friends who have masters degrees in "queer studies" or "creative writing". Frankly, the nonprofit schools have been every bit as predatory in their participation in the student loan program.

Plus, I dont care what is said, its frickin moronic to require public schools to distribute nonschool related papers to every student just to maintain funding. If William &Mary forgets to give me a "dont download illegal stuff" notice or a voter application i will not be using that has no bearing on their worthiness as an educational institution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will say that, personally, I now actually feel totally fine handing more or less all policy on K-12 educations and running those education systems to the regions.

However, most of the regulations repealed in this have nothing to do with that. A lot of them focus on the federal student aid office - which I think should be kept intact - and reporting/transparency requirements for college or requiring them to investigate certain crimes etc. That is very different from the federal government actually "creating education policy".

The regions have no less control over the core of education policy now than they would after passing all of these provisions. The only real exception to that is Section (e), the repeal of Common Core. And I would note that this provision - as well as several others in the bill - already have have a good chance of passing in one of the Dumb Regs bills currently being entertained in the House.

At the very least I would push back on the claim that requiring a college class already approved in 1 state to be approved by any state in which online students enroll even though that isnt the case if they enroll in physical classes doesn't reach the issue of regional control. Thats added bureaucracy that just increases the price of college.

I could perhaps be persuaded to support the removal of that requirement for nonprofit colleges only.

But I'm not really happy with it as currently written.

There is a private university in my town. Lots of students commute from carolina since we are right over the border. There is no rhyme or reason to allow that but forbid the exact same students from taking the exact same classes from the exact same college, online. This anti "forprofit" red herring just leads to generally bad policies. Public colleges have been very critical of the same rules because they are of General application and there is no real way to say "only bad forprofits must comply not good schools". Even then, I have friends with more valuable technical degrees from forprofit vocational schools than friends who have masters degrees in "queer studies" or "creative writing". Frankly, the nonprofit schools have been every bit as predatory in their participation in the student loan program.

Plus, I dont care what is said, its frickin moronic to require public schools to distribute nonschool related papers to every student just to maintain funding. If William &Mary forgets to give me a "dont download illegal stuff" notice or a voter application i will not be using that has no bearing on their worthiness as an educational institution.

The federal funding provides a convenient means to get people to do stuff, just make it conditional in terms of maintaining funding. The problem is, these things might be important yes, but the question remains should we be burdening the colleges with this and using the aid as hostage to get colleges to comply?

[Former President tack50]

I have to second Sestak's first statement 100%. This is several bad policies regarding education under the noble pretext of regionalization (which I believe education is already a regional issue)

I will not support this at all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE BILL:

To remove various federal regulations on schools and return them to the regions

Be it resolved in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

THESE ARE REGIONAL ISSUES ACT

SECTION I: NAME
a. This act shall be referred to as These Are Regional Issues Act

SECTION II: REGIONAL POWERS
a. The regulation prohibiting school lunches from containing more that one (1) cup of lima beans, peas, potatoes, or corn kernels per student per week is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.10 shall be amended accordingly.
b. The regulation prohibiting the hiring of a School Nutrition Program Officer unless they have a college degree is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1)(ii) & (iii) shall be amended accordingly.
c. The regulation prohibiting schools from offering 2% milkfat milk, whole milk, or chocolate milk or else lose School Breakfast and School Lunch programs funding is hereby eliminated.  7 CFR 210.10(c)(g) & 7 CFR 220.8(c)(g) & 7 CFR 215.7a shall be amended accordingly.
d. The regulation imposing arbitrary nutrition standards for snacks in school vending machines or else the school loses School Breakfast and School Lunch programs funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 7 CFR 210.11(a)(2) and 42 USC 1779 shall be amended accordingly.
e. Nothing in federal law shall be construed or interpreted as requiring Common Core State Educational standards in order to qualify for any federal education funding program, including but not limited race to the top grants.
f. The regulation implying that schools will be sued if neutral discipline policies show a disparate impact is hereby eliminated. The Dear Colleague Letter dated January 8, 2014 is hereby rescinded.
g. The regulation implying that colleges will be sued if they fail to reduce the burden of proof for campus disciplinary hearings below clear and convincing evidence is hereby eliminated. The Dear Colleague Letter dated April 4, 2011 is hereby rescinded.
h. The regulation mandating most college classes take attendance to assist in verifying if federal student loan recipients have dropped out is hereby eliminated.
i. The regulation disqualifying students convicted of drug crimes from most federal student aid programs is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1091(r)(1) shall be amended accordingly.
j. The regulation imposing certain crime reporting requirements on colleges shall not include crimes committed off-campus, including but not limited to privately operated book stores. 34 CFR 668.46 shall be amended accordingly.
k. The regulation imposing certain crime reporting requirements on colleges shall not be required for the crimes of "stalking", "domestic violence", and "dating violence", until such time that the Department of Justice provides a definition of each crime, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
l. The regulation poorly defining "credit hour" in the context of classes eligible for the student loan program is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 600.2 shall be amended accordingly.
m. The regulation mandating college financial solvency as measured by an arbitrary composite score or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.171 - 176 shall be amended accordingly.
n. The regulation mandating colleges offering online classes receive certification from every single state students enroll from instead of just the state the college is physically located in or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 cfr 600.9 shall be amended accordingly.
o. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a breakdown on the racial breakdown of the student body to each student or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1092(a)(1)(Q) shall be amended accordingly.
p. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a copy of their peer-to-peer file sharing policy along with government propaganda warning of the illegality of certain copyright violations or else lose funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 34 CFR 668.14(b)(30), 34 CFR 668.43(a)(10), 20 USC 1092(a)(1)(P) and 20 USC 1094(a)(29) shall be amended accordingly.
q. The regulation mandating colleges distribute a voter registration form to each student or else lose federal funding eligibility is hereby eliminated. 20 USC 1094(a)(23) shall be amended accordingly.

SECTION III: TIMING
a. This act shall take effect July 4, 2020.

People's Regional Senate
Pending