In my past employments I have personally experienced continuing education programs for both teachers and engineers.  My objections are several.

A.  The cost benefit ratio is totally against it.  Consider the rate at which professional engineers are paid.  The cost of that time and the resulting benefit are disproportionate.

B. As soon as the continuing education program was introduced in Texas, I was deluged with all sorts of useless course offerings at outrageous prices for the content offered.   I make that assessment from the point of view of a college professor with indistry experience who was teaching graduate and undergraduate courses.  I know what constitutes valuable engineering education.

C. The keeping of records and the occasional auditing of those records is nothing other than a bureaucratic waste of time

D.  Practicing engineers are involved daily in solving new problems which require researching new methods or new and novel applications of established methods which result in learning which far exceeds what would have to be documented for a continuing education program

E.  In industry and academia continuing education programs are used as perks for favored employees or executives to take a trip at company expense to a desirable destination (e.g. golf and ski resorts) in order to participate in "continuing education".  (put a restriction on this ethical sham and see how much executive support you loose for this program).

F.  The increasing of burdensome regulation will further limit the supply of engineers, forcing up cost of engineering while deterring talented innovators from going into the field.  And all this at a time when our economy needs legions of engineers. (consider the rate at which China is turning out new engineers - we are in competition with them !  It did not take continuing education for the U.S. to put men on the moon.)

G.  The argument that it is easy to meet the requirements is flawed.  This will be the classic case of the "camel's nose under the tent flap"  Once the program is firmly established, it will be seen that it is not having any real benefit.  Then instead of throwing it out , it will be proposed that the requirements for the continuing education are not stringent enough and the burden will be increased.  Alternatively it will be decided that more rigorous enforcement and auditing will be required and the burden and bureaucracy will increase along with cost and it still won't be very effective.  Worse yet, eventually both alternatives may be added.

H.  Engineers are innovators they go beyond continuing education, Rather than being taught accumulated knowledge, they seek it out and invent new knowledge.

I.  The real problem is with Managers who used to be engineers and now are too busy with doing management to do engineering but various codes (e.g. ASME boiler and pressure vessel code) require them to apply a PE stamp to the work done by the engineers working under them.  If these managers ever were good engineers, many of them have lost those skills. 

J.  The real driving force behind this is largely from those who feel that since other professions have continuing education requirements that engineers won't look professional.  The usual examples held up are doctors, lawyers and teachers.  None of those professions are as cost effective as engineering and they should not be used as models for what the engineering profession should be. Real engineering is not about  prestiege, it is about making things that are effective and cost effective and useful to someone.   In certain foreign cultures the prestiege aspect has sapped the strength of the profession.  Prestiege issues are largely parasitic to productivity issues.

For a better effect.  Put the required credit count for a bachelors degree in engineering  back where it was (4.5 to 5.5 years 140-145 credits mostly science and engineering).  The idea of requiring a masters degree if fatally flawed.  Good engineers need a broad based education.  Master's degrees are specializations not broad based.  Politicians are cutting into the Engineering Bachelors degree count to make a college education look cheaper and are debasing our profession in the process.  A broad base in multiple disciplines with more than superficial exposure to many fields is what is needed.