Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 135 (Wednesday, October 10, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 10, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6463-H6487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INTERNET EQUITY AND EDUCATION ACT OF 2001

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 256

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1992) to amend the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to expand the opportunities for
higher education via telecommunications. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The amendment recommended
by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed
in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce; (2) the further
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative
Mink of Hawaii or her designee, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 256 is a modified, closed rule
providing for 1 hour of debate on H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and
Education Act. The 1 hour of debate time will be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce. The rule provides that the amendment
recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed
in the bill shall be considered as adopted and all points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived also.
House Resolution 256 provides for consideration of an amendment in
the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report
accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink) or her designee, which shall be considered as read, and
shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent. House Resolution 256
waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a
substitute and provides for one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, H.R. 1992, which has been
sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) is designed to
expand Internet-based learning opportunities and higher education
across the United States by allowing greater and more effective use of
the Internet as an educational tool. As both students and busy
professionals turn to computers to assist them in advancing their
educational goals, it is becoming critically important for the Federal
Government to lend a helping hand.

{time} 1100

Passage of H.R. 1992 does just that. This bill is the first step in
removing restrictions to furthering the educational endeavors of our
citizens by the Internet.
I applaud the work of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), and the entire Committee

[[Page H6464]]

on Education and the Workforce for bringing this legislation to the
floor. I encourage my colleagues to let the House move on to
consideration of this important bill by adopting the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Internet Equity and Education Act may very well be a
step in the right direction. It was introduced and passed out of the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce on a bipartisan basis.
I salute the original sponsor of this bill, my good friend, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), who previously served with
distinction as chairman of the Georgia Board of Education and obviously
has a great deal of experience in educational matters.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to calculate how large an impact the
Internet will have on every facet of our lives. In particular, the
ability of one to educate herself or himself without ever stepping foot
on a college campus is undoubtedly one of the most profound, positive
changes to be wrought by the proliferation of computers and web-based
university instruction.
Congress, as can be our custom sometimes, is a little bit behind the
curve when it comes to technological advances and their impact on our
society. I am thrilled that we are slowly beginning to understand these
impacts and contemplating laws which help to harness the great
potential of the Internet.
Members will hear in great detail in the coming hours about the 12-
hour rule, we heard it a great deal last night, and Members will hear
about the 50 percent rule and other technical changes that this bill
makes in order.
I will not go into the details of these changes in this particular
presentation. What I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that I am
informed today that the House is expecting its last vote around 2
o'clock this afternoon. I say this to point out the fact that there is
just no reason why, in my judgment, the Committee on Rules made in
order a closed rule for this bill today.
Yesterday evening there were only four Members of the House who came
before the Committee on Rules to ask that their amendments be made in
order. Of those, the House will be able to contemplate only one
amendment under this rule.
I think this in some respects is a bit unfair and in some respects an
affront to the Members of the House, who only wish that the House be
able to work its will on an issue of such salience.
We heard last night that there was some hesitation in July from the
Department of Education as to whether we should be going forward. But
let me give the Members just some examples from some of our national
education organizations as to how they feel with reference to the 12
and 50 percent rules.
The National Education Association in one paragraph in a letter dated
October 9 said, ``The NEA acknowledges and shares the concern of many
Members that the 12-hour and 50 percent rules may not allow adequate
expansion of distance learning. We do not, however, believe that
elimination of these rules is the best way to ensure students a high-
quality education and maintain the integrity of the financial aid
program. Passage of H.R. 1992 will negatively impact the Federal
Government's role in opening college and university doors to
economically disadvantaged students who wish to attend college full-
time.''
In another paragraph, ``Passing H.R. 1992 in its current form would
send a message to college faculty that there is little inherent value
in face-to-face instruction, classroom debate, and the social processes
involved in learning.'' That was from their Director of Government
Relations.
From the Department of Legislation of the American Federation of
Teachers, in their third paragraph, I quote in part, ``The 5-year
demonstration project is currently in its second year with 25
participants. The information gathered from this demonstration program
will be available to inform Congress for the next NEA authorization,''
the education authorization, ``on the most appropriate action on
distance education;'' that is, the Higher Education Act.
The American Association of University Professors says, ``I urge you
to delay implementation of the initiatives contained within this bill
until they can be considered as a part of the overall reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act. We need more information on how best to
incorporate the promise of new technology into a varied and rigorous
educational program.''
Basically what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, what the education
associations are saying, is, slow down. This is a difficult process,
and we need time for all of us to have input.
Over the past few weeks, this Congress has been working with an
unusual degree of bipartisanship. The consideration of this bill could
very well have been another example of this. I am, at least as one
Member, disappointed that the leadership chose instead to have this
closed rule this morning and not allow Members to offer legitimate,
substantive, and meaningful amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
for yielding time to me, and express my support and gratitude for the
words that he has just finished to the House regarding the reservations
that many of us have about the passage of H.R. 1992.
Earlier this week this bill was scheduled for the suspension of the
rules, where there would not have been any possibility whatsoever of
offering any amendments, or to have a floor debate, other than the 20
minutes on each side.
So I am grateful for the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), and others who agreed to pull the bill off of
the suspension calendar and to take the matter to the Committee on
Rules. So I am pleased that that action was taken last night and the
Committee on Rules had an opportunity to hear the opposition to the
passage of H.R. 1992.
Regrettably, they issued a modified closed rule, which does not give
us the full opportunity to bring out the very important issues which I
feel this bill needs to have aired and for all Members to understand.
There are so many things that are crushing through our offices,
concerns about the war in Afghanistan and the threats on our liberties
in this country, and the other threats of terrorism that are yet to
happen in this country, so it is very, very difficult for Members to
take this rather small piece of legislation and focus on the importance
of it.
Therefore, I am pleased that at least I will have that opportunity to
do so during general debate and during the offering of my substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that the other Members who had amendments are not
going to have that special opportunity.
The reason H.R. 1992 raises all sorts of flags of warning, as has
been expressed earlier, in letters written to all Members by the
National Education Association and by the American Federation of
Teachers and the American Association of University Professors, is that
we do not want to eliminate, repeal, those very protections that were
enacted into law in 1992 and strengthened in 1998 to safeguard the
student financial aid program.
This is not a debate about distance learning, it is not a debate
about how important laptop education is in terms of allowing people to
participate in the higher education field at home, safe in their own
homes, or in their offices.
What this debate is about is whether the Congress is going to live up
to its responsibilities to protect the financial integrity of the
student loan program. That is all this is about.
Members will recall in the late 1980s and in the 1990s there were
these tremendous reports from the education institutions about huge,
crescendoing default rates. My own institutions were up at the 23
percent default rates. Many institutions were far higher.
Congress said, this cannot be. We must do something to protect the
taxpayers from having to pay out all of these loans that the students
were defaulting. So the Congress wisely put into effect three very
important rules: One, that the institutions first had to be accredited,
and that they could offer only 50 percent of their programs off campus.
There should be 50 percent on campus and 50 percent was permitted off
campus.
The other rule was that there had to be 12 hours of instructional
offerings in

[[Page H6465]]

order to be considered a full-time student.
The third was to prevent all those hoaxes that were going on where
people were being paid commissions to recruit students to sign up for
higher education courses, and this exacerbated the default situation,
so the Congress wisely put in rules to protect the integrity of the
student financial aid program; not to prevent distance learning or
learning through correspondence schools or whatever, but to make sure
that if a student signed up for higher education credits, not only that
they were full-time students, but also that they had the capacity of
being enrolled in an institution whose educational offerings could
yield a better job, could yield quality higher education, and thus
enable them to pay back the loans.
So we are here today with legislation which will, in essence, repeal
those three very important pieces of protective legislation that were
added in 1992 and strengthened in 1998.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House not to vote for this bill in haste,
because we are going to take up the higher education reauthorization
bill in the next several months. That would be the appropriate time to
review this entire matter.
The Inspector General from the U.S. Department of Education testified
before our subcommittee against waiving the requirements against the
incentive fees that were being paid. She supports the ban, which I do,
also, and which my substitute will put back into law.
So also, in 1998, Congress wisely said, well, let us have a
demonstration program to see how these things are working. We are only
in the 2-year point since that 5-year program was instituted. We only
have one single report yet having been issued to the Congress, so this
is premature. Let us not act in haste.
Remember our responsibility is to the fiscal integrity of the student
financial aid program. This is not a vote against distance learning, we
want to encourage it, but let us not do it where we could risk high
default rates and cripple our financial aid program.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), chairman of the Subcommittee on
21st Century Competitiveness.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me the time to speak on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule on H.R. 1992, the
Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. This structured rule is
needed to maintain the compromise that was reached with this
legislation, and as the gentlewoman has just spoken or remarked, it was
made to accommodate concerns that were expressed from the other side.
An open rule would allow for amendments for an intricate, detailed,
sometimes complicated statute that we will address in the next
Congress. Before favorably reporting this bill, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce carefully reviewed the provisions within
H.R. 1992 and gave thoughtful consideration to the issues surrounding
the legislation.
H.R. 1992 has as its mission to open the doors of higher education to
those people for which it has been and continues to be closed, and we
should thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for the work that
he did on the Web-based Commission in bringing this bill to the floor
at this time.
The bill is quite simple in nature, has enjoyed bipartisan support,
and was passed out of committee on a vote of 31 to 10, as well as
having the support of many in the higher education community, including
the American Council on Education. Stan Ikenberry spoke on this issue
and encouraged us to move rapidly on this legislation. He represents
1,800 of our higher education schools across the country.
Also, we have support from many others in the higher education
community. The National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators, representing 3,100 schools, has strongly supported this
bill. The goals of these and other supporters of H.R. 1992 remains
constant, to provide additional access to higher education, as the ACE
stated; adapt to the needs and demand of today's diverse student
population.

{time} 1115

Providing for a structured rule allows Members to consider a bill
that had undergone careful analysis by the committee without side-
stepping the process that provided for thoughtful negotiation and
cooperation.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this rule and allow us to move
forward in bringing H.R. 1992 to the floor for a vote.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida for
yielding me the time, and I rise today in support of the rule which
allows a substitute amendment.
In particular, this amendment offered by my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), I think makes the bill into what
we want it to be, which would be an encouragement for flexibility in
this Internet Age and education.
I would like to speak for just a minute on what the bill is about.
Congress established new rules to safeguard Federal financial aid loan
programs, and these rules were put into effect because more than one
student in five was defaulting on loans within 2 years of leaving
school. This was an embarrassment to the Congress, an embarrassment to
the country, and a waste of money.
These loan-default rates were much higher at some schools than
others. There were cases of an auto repair shop operating out of a
fruit stand and so forth and so on.
In particular, the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink) would correct two glaring problems with this bill that I
think would only perpetuate or take us back to the time of serious
misuse of the student loan program.
Simply put, H.R. 1992 eliminates the requirement in law that students
enroll for at least 12 hours of time in a course and replaces that with
a 1-day rule that would allow students to log on sometime during the
week and as a result be declared full-time students; and the schools
then would be eligible to collect student aid for those students'
tuition. It also changes the regulations that would allow some schools
to offer bounties on recruitment of students, some of whom never really
intend to be students.
So I think this rule, by allowing a substitute, will allow us to
correct the legislation and make it what we really want, something that
will ensure flexibility in education today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
Record a letter from the Secretary of Education dated July 31, 2001,
and a letter from the National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators dated September 28, 2001.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The letters referred to are as follows:

The Secretary of Education,

Washington, DC, July 31, 2001.
Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McKeon: I am writing to express the views
of the Department of Education on H.R. 1992, the Internet
Equity and Education Act of 2001, which the Education of the
Workforce Committee intends to mark up on August 1. I am
sending identical letters to Representatives Boehner, Mink,
Miller, and Isakson.
The Administration supports the Isakson substitute to H.R.
1992, which would allow needy students who require federal
student aid to have access to the many new educational
opportunities now available to other students. H.R. 1992, as
modified by the Isakson substitute, would update three
provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,
(HEA) to accommodate newer educational delivery methods and
opportunities and standard business practices. The issues
addressed in the bill were raised by the higher education
community during the previous administration and, despite
repeated urging for the Department to take action, were left
unaddressed.
In response to this inaction, the bipartisan Web-based
Education Commission, authorized by the Higher Education
Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244) and chaired by former
Senator Bob Kerrey and Representative Isakson,

[[Page H6466]]

recommended ``a full review and, if necessary, a revision of
the 12-hour rule, 50 percent rule, and incentive compensation
requirements that are creating barriers to students enrolling
in online and distance education courses.'' It also called
upon Congress and the Department to ``remove barriers that
block full learner access to online learning resources,
courses, and programs while ensuring accountability of
taxpayer dollars.''
As we began putting our new team at the Department in
place, I was pleased to see Representative Isakson propose
legislation to begin this process and to see you move forward
on eliminating these barriers. The Administration has worked
with the committee in refining the provisions in the Isakson
substitute and joins the higher education community and
Members on both sides of the aisle in supporting this
legislation.
There may be some who will try to argue that this bill
would increase fraud and abuse. Let me assure you that I am
not about to open the door for fraud and abuse. Statutory
relief from the 50 percent rule would only be extended to
low-risk institutions that are currently participating in the
Federal student aid programs and have default rates below 10
percent for the last three years.
Moreover, under the Isakson substitute, an institution
would be required to notify the Department that it qualifies
for the exemption, and the Department would be given the
authority to deny the exemption to any institution that poses
an unacceptable risk to Federal funds and program integrity.
H.R. 1992 would also replace the problematic 12-hour rule,
which has been shown to be unworkable for many nontraditional
formats, with the same safeguards we have been using for the
majority of institutions offering courses in a standard term-
based format. However, other safeguards against course length
manipulation, such as the 30-week academic year minimum and
the clock-hour/credit-hour conversion requirements, would be
left in place. As we noted in our recent report on the 12-
hour rule, nearly all of the members of the higher education
community who participated in the Department's discussions on
the subject favored using this uniform standard.
Similarly, the amendments in H.R. 1992 regarding incentive
payments contain a new definition of ``salary'' and a new
statutory limitation against salary adjustments that are more
frequent than every 6 months, which guards against using
frequent salary adjustments as de facto commissions. The
Isakson substitute would also revise the current provisions
to reflect current business practices, including referrals
from World Wide Web sites, which did not exist when the
provisions were enacted in 1992. However, other safeguards
against fraud and abuse would remain in place, such as
student eligibility requirements and new requirements for
returning Federal aid funds when students drop out. The
Administration is aware that there are concerns that the
changes H.R. 1992 would make to current law on incentive
payments could lead to increased risk of recruiting abuses.
We will continue to work with Congress to ensure that this
bill includes adequate safeguards to protect students and
taxpayers.
Since the day I took office, I have focused on tackling the
substantial mismanagement and fraud that cast a cloud over
the Department. Working closely with the Inspector General
and the U.S. General Accounting Office, we have already made
considerable progress in turning that around. Consistent with
this new approach, we will closely monitor institutions,
enforce the many safeguards that are in place, and
aggressively pursue any instances of fraud and abuse in the
Federal student aid programs.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the submission of this report to Congress.
Sincerely,
Rod Paige.
____

National Association of Student Financial and
Administrators,
Washington, DC, September 28, 2001.
Hon. John Boehner,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the National Association of
Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), representing
student financial aid administrators at nearly 3,1000
postsecondary institutions, I am writing to express our
organization's strong support for H.R. 1992, the Internet
Equity and Education Act of 2001.
We believe this legislation is a reasonable first step in
encouraging the delivery of alternative and distance
education services to our nation's students. The bill makes
necessary changes to encourage the use of federal student aid
for those individuals who seek to better their individual or
family circumstances by seeking a postsecondary education.
Some who have challenged the need for H.R. 1992 are
concerned that the bill may encourage fraud and abuse of the
student aid system by postsecondary institutions. NASFAA
emphatically rejects that contention. We note that when the
restrictions on distance education were placed on
postsecondary institutions by the Higher Education Amendments
of 1992, they were necessary because the Department of
Education did not have adequate internal controls on schools.
However, other statutory provisions provided in the Higher
Education Amendments of 1992 have allowed the Department of
Education to use these monitoring and gatekeeping tools
effectively.
The concerns expressed by opponents to H.R. 1992 are not
founded on current realities. Since the 1992 Amendments, ED
has rooted out problem schools and eliminated over 1,300 from
eligibility for Federal grants, loans, and work-study
funding. Next, the postsecondary community has substantially
increased its self-goverance, accreditation, and internal
consumer protection activities and schools have increased
their consumer information disclosure efforts. In fact, the
legislation contains safeguards that should put to rest any
concerns about misuse. For example, the legislation has
strict eligibility limits on a school's participation, it
gives the Secretary discretionary power to deny a school's
participation in the program, and it mandates the Department
of Education monitor and issue a report to the Congress on
the program. Finally, should any problems arise from the
testing of these provisions in the bill, they can be quickly
addressed when the Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education
Act that expires on September 30, 2003.
The combination of increased oversight and gatekeeping
activities by the Department since 1992, of increased
internal higher education community self-governance and
consumer protection activities, as well as, H.R. 1992's
school participation limits and ED oversight and monitoring
activities are more than adequate safeguards to allay any
concerns over abuse of the changes permitted by the
legislation.
Again, NASFAA strongly supports and urges quick House
passage of H.R. 1992.
Sincerely,
Dallas Martin,
President.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, comments have been made by my dear friend,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and my dear friend, the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), with regard to this legislation
that I would like to just clarify for the record.
The letter mentioned before, dated July 31, 2001, is the letter from
Secretary Paige to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, which
endorses House Bill 1992 and all of its provisions as they were written
then and substantially remain the same today.
Secondly, there have been some comments that we are moving too fast.
First of all, I suspect that Thomas Jefferson was told that when Lewis
and Clark were authorized to see if there was anything west of the
Mississippi River. I am sure President Kennedy was told that and
advised against moving too fast in sending men to the Moon, and I am
sure President Bush has been given a lot of information or advice
recently about not moving too fast.
History has proven that all those greater leaders, by moving
expeditiously in times of opportunity, have moved our country forward.
The truth of the matter is we are not moving too fast. We are way
behind.
The Web-based Education Committee, funded by this Congress to the
tune of $625,000, did a 1-year comprehensive study which I was pleased
to be the vice-chairman of while Senator Bob Kerrey was the chairman.
We produced a bipartisan report which precisely recommended changes in
the 50 percent rule, the 12-hour rule, and the incentive-compensation
rule. That was done over a year ago.
The committee, at the request of the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs.
Mink), has held hearings. We held a full and open debate in the
committee, considered many amendments, and the bill was passed with a
bipartisan vote in the committee.
I would submit the time is now, and the most pressing evidence of all
that the time is now is the fact that the United States Army, after the
completion of our report, created a worldwide digital school system for
the post-secondary and advanced education of our men and women in the
military and all of their dependents, totally delivered over the Web.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this rule is fair. I respect the
consideration of this substitute from the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs.
Mink), but I urge my fellow Members of Congress to support this rule
and in turn to support the bill in its final passage.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
include in the Record at the appropriate place the letters earlier
mentioned from the National Education Association, the American
Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University
Professors.

[[Page H6467]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The letters referred to are as follows:

AAUP,

October 5, 2001.
House of Representatives.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Association
of University Professors, I am writing to urge you to vote
against H.R. 1992, ``The Internet Equity and Education Act of
2001.'' This bill would dismantle some of the minimal quality
assurance provisions that maintain the integrity of the
instructional programs being offered to students receiving
financial aid. It is at the very least premature to make
these changes at this time.
Specifically the bill would eliminate the ``50% rule'' and
the ``12 hour rule.'' The ``50% rule'' was adopted by
Congress in 1992, when the Higher Education Act amendments
excluded schools that offer more than half of their courses
by correspondence (which includes distance education) and
schools in which more than half of the students are enrolled
in correspondence courses from eligibility for student
financial assistance. During the last reauthorization of the
HEA in 1998, the AAUP encouraged the continuation of the
``50% rule'' with respect to distance education courses, to
ensure that, as these courses develop, they would continue to
be associated with traditional colleges and universities
offering campus-based programs. Congress continued the ``50%
rule'', but gave the Secretary of Education broad authority
to waive the rule for any of the institutions participating
in a demonstration program.
The ``12 hour rule'' was the result of a difficult
compromise process to carry out the minimum amount of
instructional time mandate of the 1992 reauthorization. There
is general agreement among educators that twelve hours per
week of ``seat time'' is not the only, and not even the best,
way to quantify full-time pursuit of higher education. Even
aside from new delivery modes offered by new technologies,
there are many ways of engaging fully in education that do
not involve sitting in a classroom. But as yet, no one has
come up with an acceptable way to measure equivalency of
effort and accomplishments, across a variety of institutions,
disciplines, regions, and educational methodologies.
Proponents of the legislation complain that, under current
rules, many non-traditional students who take courses via the
World Wide Web receive less aid than those who travel to a
campus. If, however, the student is not required to pay full
tuition and fees, is not paying for room and board away from
a family home, and/or is not travelling to and from a campus,
the student's expenses may be lower than those of a full time
student. The way the legislation is written, rent and food
subsidies should be available to any person who signs up for
even a single on-line course, with instruction occurring at
least once a week. We need an answer to keep up with the
times, but a complete waiver of the ``12 hour rule'' does not
provide that answer.
AAUP Recommendations:
1. Accrediting agencies need to do a better, more specific
job defining the elements of higher education. What do we
mean by a ``college degree?'' How much learning goes into
that? How universal are educators' expectations, for level
and breadth of course work, across institutional and regional
boundaries? Transfers among institutions and transfers among
modes of education make these questions inescapable.
2. Faculty need to define measures of course work. What is
a ``course''? How much learning is going on when a student is
engaged in full time education? What's half of that? What's a
quarter of that? Since faculty have not articulated this
definition so far, others are filling in with their attempts.
The Department of Education's 12-hour rule was one such
attempt. Congress is now considering doing away with all
measures, except those offered by the lowest common
denominator of education providers.
3. The Institution for Higher Education Policy is engaged
in a major study of the student credit hour, its uses and
effects. By the time the Higher Education Act is due to be
re-authorized, this study should yield some thoughtful
results. Instead of creating chaos now by simply lifting all
limitations, it seems reasonable to allow the study to
proceed and to build legislation on its conclusions.
I urge you to delay implementation of the initiatives
contained within this bill until they can be considered as a
part of the overall reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act. To eliminate these rules would remove Congress's only
protection against a return to the situation during the late
1980s where a few disreputable institutions abused the
federal student aid programs. We need more information on how
best to incorporate the promise of new technology into a
varied and rigorous educational program.
Sincerely yours,
Mary Burgan,
General Secretary.
____

NEA,

October 9, 2001.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Education
Association's (NEA) 2.6 million members, we urge you to
oppose the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001 (H.R.
1992). This legislation would eliminate or modify important
policies that were carefully crafted during the 1998
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, including the
requirement that students enroll in 12 hours of coursework in
order to receive financial aid and the so-called ``50 percent
rule.''
NEA acknowledges and shares the concern of many Members
that the 12-hour and 50 percent rules may not allow adequate
expansion of distance learning. We do not, however, believe
that elimination of these rules is the best way to ensure
students a high quality education and maintain the integrity
of the financial aid program. Passage of H.R. 1992 will
negatively impact the federal government's role both in
opening college and university doors to economically
disadvantaged students who wish to attend college full-time,
and in supporting life-long learning and non-traditional
students.
Elimination or modification of the 12-hour and 50 percent
rule would be premature at this time. Congress enacted the
Learning Anywhere Anytime Partnerships (LAAP) demonstration
program in 1998 to study the effects of distance learning on
student aid program integrity. The program is in the second
of its five-year authorization and has awarded grants to 25
participants. To date, Congress has had no opportunity for
full evaluation of these partnerships, while the Department
of Education has not compiled any meaningful information or
data about the LAAP program.
Passing H.R. 1992 in its current form would send a message
to college faculty that there is little inherent value to
face-to-face instruction, classroom debate, and the social
processes involved in learning. While we recognize that some
educators and institutions have placed strong quality
controls on their distance learning courses, not all distance
courses include such protections.
We urge you to oppose H.R. 1992 until appropriate data
about the LAAP program are available and a suitable
alternative to the 12-hour and 50 percent rules can be
developed. We look forward to working with Congress in this
regard.
Sincerely,
Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
Director of Government Relations
____

American Federation

of Teachers,

October 9, 2001.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than one million
members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),
including over 120,000 in higher education, I urge you to
oppose H.R. 1992, The Internet Equity and Education Act of
2001. It is our understanding this legislation will be
considered by the House today. H.R. 1992 eliminates the
requirement that students enroll in at least 12 hours of
coursework to receive full student aid and modifies the so-
called ``50 percent rule'' under which institutions must
offer no more than half their coursework by distance
education in order for their students to be able to receive
federal student aid. These changes to existing provisions of
law and regulation fail to take into consideration issues of
quality and standards in distance education programs and
preempt demonstration programs and studies that are currently
underway to gauge the effects of distance learning on student
aid program integrity.
Both the 12-hour and 50 percent rules, while not perfect,
have been tools to ensure integrity in federal student
financial aid programs within our institutions of higher
education and promote some ``same-time same-place''
interaction as part of a student's academic program. Moving
forward with H.R. 1992 at this time, without consideration to
quality control safeguards and higher standards, would be
premature and irresponsible, particularly when other
approaches are available.
The AFT believes that we need more data and information on
the effects of lifting the 12-hour and 50 percent rule. We,
along with other organizations, anxiously await the
information from the U.S. Department of Education on the
Distance Education Demonstration program authorized by the
Higher Education Act (HEA). The 5-year demonstration program
is currently in its second year with 25 participants. The
information gathered from this demonstration program will be
available to inform Congress for the next HEA reauthorization
on the most appropriate action on distance education policy.
The AFT is eager to work to develop possible alternatives
that would both facilitate the intentions of the supporters
of H.R. 1992 as well as respond to the concerns we have
discussed. Technology has paved the way for significant
developments in education. Ensuring that these developments
enhance the quality of education in our colleges and
universities is our primary goal and concern.
We urge you to vote against H.R. 1992 and wait until the
appropriate data and information on the Demonstration project
are available to assure quality safeguards for distance
education.
Sincerely,
Charlotte J. Fraas,
Director, Depatment of Legislation.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

[[Page H6468]]

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
time.
I really rise in support of the rule and also to praise the author of
this bipartisan legislation, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
He is right, this legislation is a modest step forward to provide
needed flexibility with proper controls to enable our education system
to take greater advantage of new technology.
This is not going to be the final answer. This is going to be subject
to reauthorization in a couple of years. But why we should wait and why
we should not, with controls, allow the education institutions of
America to adapt to incorporated distance learning to other greater
extent is beyond me.
The fact of the matter is that no institution would be enabled to go
forward under this legislation if it were enacted unless it had a
student default rate of less than 10 percent for the 3 most recent
years. So really that door is closed. Furthermore, they could not
automatically go ahead and get rid of some of the automated rules about
in-class hours. They would have to submit their plan, and the Secretary
could disapprove it if he felt it was inappropriate.
This legislation will help people who are working parents who cannot
otherwise upgrade their knowledge easily because they are working and
they have got to take care of their family. They can do that through
distance learning at home on their computers. It will help people in
rural areas, economically disadvantaged people. It will help people who
have disabilities who cannot get around as easily. They can use the
computer instead of the 12-hour rule, under appropriate circumstances.
I think the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) hit it exactly
right. This is not radical. We are already behind the curve. New
technology is enabling things to move forward in many, many areas; and
this bipartisan legislation will simply enable the education
institutions of the United States to adapt to the changing technology
faster than they would otherwise.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on July 24, 2001, the Secretary
of Education passed on a letter to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs.
Mink), and I ask unanimous consent to include it in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The letter referred to is as follows:

Secretary of Education,

Washington, DC., July 24, 2001.
Hon. Patsy T. Mink,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Mink: Thank you for your letter
regarding the Department of Education's report on the 12-hour
rule and future policy guidance clarifying the Incentive
Compensation provision. You also requested that we answer two
questions raised at the 21st Century Competitiveness
Subcommittee's hearing on June 20, 2001. The Administration
is completing its review of H.R. 1992 and is currently
developing a position on the bill.
In summary, I am pleased to inform you that we: have
completed the report on the 12-hour rule; are finalizing the
Administration's policy on incentive compensation; and with
this letter, are responding to the questions raised in the
hearing.
I agree with the statement that Dr. Stan Ikenberry of the
American Council on Education made at your hearing that
``distance education will only continue to expand and we
would be foolish to not look for ways to let learners,
especially those for whom a traditional classroom setting is
impracticable or unavailable, benefit from this powerful
tool. If we fail to address this issue, we will be creating
an access issue for students who must rely in part on federal
aid to achieve their education goals.'' I am committed to
moving forward to expand new educational opportunities and
address the recommendations of the Web-based Education
Commission while protecting students, taxpayers, and the
integrity of the student financial aid programs. We would
like to continue working with you during this process to
ensure that we find a cost-neutral solution.

Report on the 12-hour Rule

We have completed our report to Congress on the
Department's discussions with the higher education community.
This report was requested in the conference report on the
Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-
554). The enclosed report contains details on the background
and history of the 12-hour rule, information from two
meetings with the higher education community that were held
in October 2000 and January 2001, and information from three
focus groups that were held in November and December 2000,
and also summarizes the many interesting ideas that were
generated during these meetings and focus groups. The
enclosed report will be provided to all members of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The conference report also requested that the Department
make recommendations to Congress by October 1, 2001,
regarding the most appropriate means to maintain the
integrity of the Federal student financial assistance
programs without creating unnecessary paperwork for
institutions of higher education. As the Department's
Inspector General, Lorraine Lewis, mentioned in her testimony
at the hearing, ``The key issue is harnessing the growth of
the Internet and the advances in educational technology to
expand educational opportunities is how to make changes that
encourage innovative educational program delivery while
ensuring accountability and integrity.'' We will continue to
monitor the issue closely and may propose additional changes
if necessary during the reauthorization process.

Incentive Compensation Guidance

The Department is not yet prepared to issue a document on
incentive compensation. We want any new guidance on this
topic to be clear and not overly prescriptive for
institutions of higher education.
Our first priority is to provide clear guidance to schools
on the activities that are permissible under the law and
regulations on incentive compensation. I agree with the
statement made by Chairman McKeon at the hearing that many
schools ``truly don't know if they are in violation of the
law or not.'' We need to change this situation, because it is
clear that the Department needs to provide better guidance in
this area.
I am also mindful of the advice given by our Inspector
General who said that ``the key issue is how to make changes
that encourage innovative educational program delivery while
ensuring accountability of taxpayer dollars and preserving
the integrity of the SFA programs.'' For this reason, we plan
to have new discussions with the higher education community
on the safeguards that must be in place to ensure
accountability and integrity. We need to strive for a
consensus on boundaries that allow our institutions of higher
education to operate in a reasonable and predictable
environment and that also protect the public from the types
of abuses we saw in the past.
Since the day I took office I have focused on tackling the
substantial mismanagement and fraud that have cast a cloud
over the Department's finances and reputation over the past
few years. Faced with 661 audit recommendations, the
Management Improvement Team I put in place in April has been
working full-time. I reported last week that more than 300 of
those recommendations have been addressed. In Student
Financial Assistance, I have pledged that we will remove SFA
from the General Accounting Office's list of ``high risk''
programs before the next reauthorization.
I am not about to open the door for fraud and abuse. I will
never allow us to go back to the days when commissioned
salespersons were paid to bring in unqualified applicants and
I don't believe that the higher education community wants
that either. I want to listen to the views of the higher
education community before providing any new guidance on
prohibited activities.

answers to questions

1. Should the criteria for recognition of accrediting
agencies require that they have specific standards for
evaluating the quantity and quality of distance education
programs?
The Department recognizes accrediting agencies to ensure
that these agencies are reliable authorities regarding the
quality of education or training offered by the institutions
or programs they accredit, for purposes of the Higher
Education Act.
Educational quality and quantity for such postsecondary
programs are already addressed in the current standards. We
plan to discuss the findings in the Inspector General's
report, ``Management Controls for Distance Education at State
Agencies and Accrediting Agencies,'' released in September
2000 with the state and accrediting agencies and we will
continue to work with them in this area. Until accrediting
agencies have been given the opportunity to address these
concerns, the Department does not believe that new specific
Federally-mandated standards for recognition related to
distance education are necessary at this time.
Each agency recognized by the Department must demonstrate
that it has standards for accreditation, and
preaccreditation, if offered, that are sufficiently rigorous
to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding
the quality of the education or training provided by the
institutions or programs it accredits.
The Department considers whether the agency's accreditation
standards effectively address the quality of the institution
or programs in the following areas:
Success with respect to student achievement in relation to
the institution's mission, including, as appropriate,
consideration of course completion, State licensing
examination, and job placement rates.
Curricula.
Faculty.
Facilities, equipment, and supplies.
Fiscal and administrative capacity as appropriate, to the
specified scale of operations.
Student support services.
Recruiting and admissions practices, academic calendars,
catalogs, publications, grading, and advertising.

[[Page H6469]]

Measures of program length and the objectives of the
degrees or credentials offered.
Record of student complaints received by, or available to,
the agency.
Record of compliance with the institution's program
responsibilities under Title IV of the Higher Education Act,
based on the most recent student loan default rate data
provided by the Department, the results of financial or
compliance audits, program reviews, and any other information
that the Secretary may provide to the agency.
Recognized agencies may establish additional accreditation
standards that they deem appropriate beyond what is required
by the Department's recognition criteria, and many in fact
do. These additional standards could include standards
specific to distance education.
2. What is the definition of ``instruction'' as it relates to
the 12-hour rule? Should study groups be included as
instruction?
In an effort to provide great flexibility to institutions
that serve nontraditional students, the final regulations
published on November 29, 1994, considered instruction to
include regularly scheduled instruction, examination, or
preparation for examination. This instructional time also
includes internships, cooperative education programs,
independent study and other forms of regularly scheduled
instruction. Instructional time does not include periods of
orientation, counseling, or vacation. The final regulations
published November 1, 2000, clarified that homework does not
count as instructional time and that, in terms of
``preparation for examinations,'' only study for final
examinations that occurs after the last scheduled day of
classes for a payment period would count as instructional
time. A study group that did not conform to these regulatory
criteria would not be considered as instruction.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to these issues. I
look forward to continuing to work with you, Chairman McKeon,
Chairman Boehner, and Representative Miller over the coming
years to expand educational opportunities for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Rod Paige.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule; and I
would like to begin by congratulating my friend from Georgia (Mr.
Isakson), who, having talked about his work on the commission, has, I
believe, done a superb job in realizing that we have the ability to
take 21st-century technology and link that up with the very important
opportunity for educational choice. It seems to me that as we look at
the challenges of the new millennium, it is obvious that education is
at the top of the list and we know very much that technology is
changing our lives in so many, many ways. I believe that this
legislation is a very important step in the direction of doing just
that.
We have got a very fair and balanced rule that will allow us to move
ahead to enhance the quality of education in this country. I believe
that we should enjoy strong bipartisan support. The gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson) has just informed me that we will see strong
support from both sides of the aisle for this measure. And so I think
it is important that we have the debate. It is important that we allow
for these different options to be considered. But at the end of the
day, I believe that this measure is deserving of all Members' votes
because we do face a lot of challenges. And we obviously today are
focused on the war against terrorism.
We know that if we look at the campaign of last year, President Bush
and Vice President Gore talked about the need to improve education. And
so improving the quality of education in this country is not a partisan
issue. And this measure which the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson)
and his colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce have
fashioned is one which I believe will go a long way toward improving
that quality and then recognizing where we are. So I hope very much
that we will pass this rule, and I hope that we will pass the bill; and
I congratulate all of those involved in it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I urge my colleagues to support
this fair rule and move on with the debate of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 256, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1992) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to
expand the opportunities for higher education via telecommunications,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 256, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 1992 is as follows:

H.R. 1992

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `` Internet Equity and
Education Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO 50 PERCENT CORRESPONDENCE COURSE
LIMITATIONS.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF ACADEMIC YEAR.

Section 481(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1088(a)(2)) is amended by inserting after the first
sentence the following new sentence: ``For the purposes of
any program under this title (whether a standard or
nonstandard term program), a week of instruction is defined
as a week in which at least one day of instruction,
examination, or preparation for examination occurs.''.

SEC. 4. INCENTIVE COMPENSATION.

(a) Amendment.--Part G of title IV of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 is amended by inserting after section 484B (20
U.S.C. 1091b) the following new section:

``SEC. 484C. INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROHIBITED.

``No institution of higher education participating in a
program under this title shall make any payment of a
commission, bonus, or other incentive, non-salary payment,
based directly on success in securing enrollments or
financial aid, to any person or entity directly engaged in
student recruiting or admission activities, or making
decisions regarding the award of student financial
assistance, except that this section shall not apply to the
recruitment of foreign students residing in foreign countries
who are not eligible to receive Federal student
assistance.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (20) of section 487(a)
(20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(20)) is repealed.
(c) Technical Amendment.--Section 487(c)(1) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(c)(1)) is amended by
striking ``paragraph (2)(B)'' each place it appears in
subparagraphs (F) and (H) and inserting ``paragraph (3)(B)''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is
adopted.
The text of H.R. 1992, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 1992

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Equity and
Education Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO 50 PERCENT CORRESPONDENCE COURSE
LIMITATIONS.

[[Page H6470]]

``(7) Exception to limitation based on course of study.--
Courses offered via telecommunications (as defined in section
484(l)(4)) shall not be considered to be correspondence
courses for purposes of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph
(3) for any institution that--
``(A) is participating in either or both of the loan
programs under part B or D of title IV on the date of
enactment of the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001;
``(B) has a cohort default rate (as determined under
section 435(m)) for each of the 3 most recent fiscal years
for which data are available that is less than 10 percent;
and
``(C)(i) has notified the Secretary, in a form and manner
prescribed by the Secretary (including such information as
the Secretary may require to meet the requirements of clause
(ii)), of the election by such institution to qualify as an
institution of higher education by means of the provisions of
this paragraph; and
``(ii) the Secretary has not, within 90 days after such
notice, and the receipt of any information required under
clause (i), notified the institution that the election by
such institution would pose a significant risk to Federal
funds and the integrity of programs under title IV.''.
(b) Definition of Eligible Student.--Section 484(l)(1) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(l)(1)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Exception to 50 percent limitation.--Notwithstanding
the 50 percent limitation in subparagraph (A), a student
enrolled in a course of instruction described in such
subparagraph shall not be considered to be enrolled in
correspondence courses if the student is enrolled in an
institution that--
``(i) is participating in either or both of the loan
programs under part B or D of title IV on the date of
enactment of the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001;
``(ii) has a cohort default rate (as determined under
section 435(m)) for each of the 3 most recent fiscal years
for which data are available that is less than 10 percent;
and
``(iii)(I) has notified the Secretary, in form and manner
prescribed by the Secretary (including such information as
the Secretary may require to meet the requirements of
subclause (II)), of the election by such institution to
qualify its students as eligible students by means of the
provisions of this subparagraph; and
``(II) the Secretary has not, within 90 days after such
notice, and the receipt of any information required under
subclause (I), notified the institution that the election by
such institution would pose a significant risk to Federal
funds and the integrity of programs under title IV.''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF ACADEMIC YEAR.

Section 481(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1088(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) For the purposes of any eligible program, a week of
instruction is defined as a week in which at least one day of
regularly scheduled instruction or examinations occurs, or at
least one day of study for final examinations occurs after
the last scheduled day of classes. For an educational program
using credit hours, but not using a semester, trimester, or
quarter system, an institution of higher education shall
notify the Secretary, in the form and manner prescribed by
the Secretary, if the institution plans to offer an eligible
program of instruction of less than 12 hours of regularly
scheduled instruction, examinations, or preparation for
examinations for a week of instructional time.''.

SEC. 4. INCENTIVE COMPENSATION.

(a) Amendment.--Part G of title IV of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 is amended by inserting after section 484B (20
U.S.C. 1091b) the following new section:

``SEC. 484C. INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROHIBITED.

``(a) Prohibition.--No institution of higher education
participating in a program under this title shall make any
payment of a commission, bonus, or other incentive payment,
based directly on success in securing enrollments or
financial aid, to any person or entity directly engaged in
student recruiting or admission activities, or making
decisions regarding the award of student financial
assistance, except that this section shall not apply to the
recruitment of foreign students residing in foreign countries
who are not eligible to receive Federal student assistance.
``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to payment
of a commission, bonus, or other incentive payment--
``(1) pursuant to any contract with any third-party service
provider that has no control over eligibility for admission
or enrollment or the awarding of financial aid at the
institution of higher education, provided that no employee of
the third-party service provider is paid a commission, bonus,
or other incentive payment based directly on success in
securing enrollments or financial aid; or
``(2) to persons or entities for success in securing
agreements, contracts, or commitments from employers to
provide financial support for enrollment by their employees
in an institution of higher education or for activities that
may lead to such agreements, contracts, or commitments.
``(c) Exception for Fixed Compensation.--For purposes of
subsection (a), a person shall not be treated as receiving
incentive compensation when such person receives a fixed
compensation that is paid regularly for services and that is
adjusted no more frequently than every six months.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (20) of section 487(a)
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(20))
is repealed.
(c) Technical Amendment.--Section 487(c)(1) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(c)(1)) is amended by
striking ``paragraph (2)(B)'' each place it appears in
subparagraphs (F) and (H) and inserting ``paragraph (3)(B)''.

SEC. 5. EVALUATION AND REPORT.

(a) Information from Institutions.--
(1) Institutions covered by requirement.--The requirements
of paragraph (2) apply to any institution of higher education
that--
(A) has notified the Secretary of Education of an election
to qualify for the exception to limitation based on course of
study in section 102(a)(7) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(a)(7)) or the exception to the 50
percent limitation in section 484(l)(1)(C) of such Act (20
U.S.C. 1091(l)(1)(C));
(B) has notified the Secretary under section 481(a)(3) of
such Act (20 U.S.C. 1088(a)(3)); or
(C) contracts with outside parties for--
(i) the delivery of distance education programs;
(ii) the delivery of programs offered in nontraditional
formats; or
(iii) the purpose of securing the enrollment of students.
(2) Requirements.--Any institution of higher education to
which this paragraph applies shall comply, on a timely basis,
with the Secretary of Education's reasonable requests for
information on changes in--
(A) the amount or method of instruction offered;
(B) the types of programs or courses offered;
(C) enrollment by type of program or course;
(D) the amount and types of grant, loan, or work assistance
provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
that is received by students enrolled in programs conducted
in nontraditional formats; and
(E) outcomes for students enrolled in such courses or
programs.
(b) Report by Secretary Required.--The Secretary of
Education shall conduct by grant or contract a study of, and
by March 31, 2003, submit to the Congress, a report on--
(1) the effect that the amendments made by this Act have
had on--
(A) the ability of institutions of higher education to
provide distance learning opportunities to students; and
(B) program integrity;
(2) with respect to distance education or correspondence
education courses at institutions of higher education to
which the information requirements of subsection (a)(2)
apply, changes from year-to-year in--
(A) the amount or method of instruction offered and the
types of programs or courses offered;
(B) the number and type of students enrolled in distance
education or correspondence education courses;
(C) the amount of student aid provided to such students, in
total and as a percentage of the institution's revenue; and
(D) outcomes for students enrolled in distance education or
correspondence education courses, including graduation rates,
job placement rates, and loan delinquencies and defaults;
(3) any reported and verified claim of inducement to
participate in the student financial aid programs and any
violation of the Higher Education Act of 1965, including any
actions taken by the Department of Education against the
violator; and
(4) any further improvements that should be made to the
provisions amended by this Act (and related provisions), in
order to accommodate nontraditional educational opportunities
in the Federal student assistance programs while ensuring the
integrity of those programs.

SEC. 6. LEARNING ANYTIME ANYWHERE PARTNERSHIPS.

Section 420J of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1070f-6) is amended by adding at the end the following new
sentence: ``If for any fiscal year funds are not appropriated
pursuant to this section, funds available under part B of
title VII, relating to the Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education, may be made available for
continuation grants for any grant recipient under this
subpart.''.

SEC. 7. IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) No Delay in Effective Date.--Section 482(c) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1089(c)) shall not
apply to the amendments made by this Act.
(b) Implementing Regulations.--Section 492 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1098a) shall not apply to
the amendments made by sections 2 and 3 of this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in House Report 107-232 if offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs.
Mink), or her designee, which shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally
divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

General Leave

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous information on H.R. 1992.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H6471]]

First, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for
introducing this timely and important legislation, H.R. 1992, the
Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. As a co-chair of the Web-
based Education Commission, the gentleman took the lead in discovering
regulatory and statutory impediments to expanding accesses to higher
education programs through the Internet, especially more nontraditional
students.
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his
efforts in moving the bill through the committee and getting it here on
the floor for a vote.
The legislation we are considering today makes minor but meaningful
changes to the Higher Education Act to expand access to higher
education while maintaining the integrity of our financial assistance
programs.
This legislation does three things. It will remove the burden of the
so-called 12-hour rule. Under this rule, institutions are required to
keep literally hundreds of thousands of additional attendance records
each year just to show that their students attended certain types of
study or learning sessions.

{time} 1130

Second, H.R. 1992 changes current law to allow a limited number of
institutions to offer more than 50 percent of their courses by
telecommunications or to serve more than 50 percent of their students
through telecommunication courses.
Thirdly, H.R. 1992 helps to address some of the confusion regarding
the incentive compensation provisions enacted in 1998.
It is important that we move forward with this legislation to ensure
that students have access to the best educational opportunities. If
changes are not made now, we are going to have to wait until the next
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2003, and most likely
until after the rulemaking process that follows a reauthorization. This
could easily mean an additional 4 or 5 years. By passing this
legislation now, Congress will have 2 years to monitor the impact that
these amendments will make and could easily make the necessary mid-
course corrections as part of the coming reauthorization.
Distance education provides a tremendous opportunity to expand access
to postsecondary education to those who may otherwise be unable to
participate. We recognize there are concerns associated with new
technologies and new methods of providing education. However, there are
also tremendous possibilities for students who otherwise may not be
able to get an education. We are indeed mindful of those concerns, and
I believe that this legislation contains the necessary safeguards to
ensure that title IV student assistance funds are spent the way they
are intended, to benefit students, and to serve the public interest.
This legislation contains a thoughtful balance between prudence and
innovation.
H.R. 1992 is a needed first step to ensure that a postsecondary
education is available to all who want to pursue it. At the same time,
it does not diminish nor undo needed integrity provisions in the law.
All of my colleagues should vote today to expand educational
opportunities for all of our citizens. It is the right thing to do, and
it is the right time to do it. I would urge all my colleagues today to
support our bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1992. I
believe that it endangers the stability and integrity of the Federal
student financial aid programs and could lead us back to a time of high
double-digit default rates. That is the singular purpose which prompts
me to rise in opposition to this legislation. I believe that Congress
has no greater responsibility to the taxpayers than to make certain
that what happened in the 1980s and early 1990s, which created this
huge student default rates, should never ever happen again in this
country.
Congress took action in 1992 and established some very tight
protections to govern the operation of the student aid program, not to
limit education for the disadvantaged, or for those that are homebound
or those in rural areas or people who are working for a living in the
daytime and can only afford nighttime or weekend classes. Certainly we
want to encourage that. But we do not want to encourage it with the
idea that the protections that were enacted in 1992 are going to be
cast aside, and this is what H.R. 1992 does today. It, in effect,
repeals three very basic protections, and I feel that it is not only
premature but that the Congress ought to consider the efficacy of such
repeal when we consider the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
in the next several months.
Distance education is here. We certainly want to foster it. We want
to do everything we can to encourage people to utilize the Internet,
laptops, and so forth in order to advance themselves, to obtain a
quality education, better jobs and better opportunities for their
families. But in doing so, we do not want to sacrifice the financial
integrity of the student financial aid programs, and that is all that
we are questioning today and that is what this debate is all about.
We had an opportunity to discuss this in committee. There was a
division, a sharp division on my side. Ten members on our side voted
against the bill and nine voted for it. So there is a division and a
substantial question which has been echoed not only by Members of
Congress with respect to this legislation, but by the American
Federation of Teachers, that has distributed a letter to all Members of
the Congress raising very strong concerns they have about eliminating
these protections. The National Education Association has sent out
letters to all of us asking us to oppose enactment of this bill at this
time.
The American Association of University Professors, comprising those
individuals who are right there at the front line of higher education,
who should know something about it, is asking us not to vote for this
bill at this time.
The Web-based Commission that is cited many times as being the ones
that originated this discussion made no recommendation in their
commission findings. They said we should study it and we should decide
whether there should be changes.
Congress in 1998 said, well, these are the issues that ought to be
discussed. They established a demonstration grant program administered
by the Department. The grants have been in effect for 2 years. We have
only one report. It is a 5-year demonstration program. We certainly
ought to give that demonstration project its life so that we can decide
from actual experiences in the field whether lifting the 50-50 rule and
the 2-hour rule and the incentive prohibitions can, in a way,
jeopardize the stability of the student financial aid program.
So we rise today with great trepidation that if we move too hastily,
we will jeopardize the program that has meant so much to the future of
our people in the country trying to better themselves through higher
education. We have reports which have come in recently, a news release
today, as a matter of fact, by the U.S. Department of Education, the
Inspector General's Office, which has charged Indiana Wesleyan
University with violating the very rules that were put into effect to
safeguard the student financial aid program. They found this university
as wanting in terms of the 12-hour rule and in terms of the ban that
was placed from going out to solicit students and getting a kickback of
the tuitions for that particular type of illegal recruiting.
And this is not the first time. The Office of Inspector General has
issued a number of other citations against other universities. So this
is a real problem. We are not trying to raise flags of concern
regarding nonexistent difficulties in the higher educational field. So
today's press release is a stern warning that we ought to be very
careful.
In the first place, it is the Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of Education that came to the committee and testified about
the importance of this protective legislation that was put into effect
in 1992, and she did not support repealing them at this time. So I take
great heed of the words from the Inspector General, who has the
enforcement responsibility; and she told us in committee that these
protective provisions in the law today are important. They are
important to safeguard the

[[Page H6472]]

integrity of the student financial aid program, and they ought not to
be dismissed without intense discussion and consideration and, also,
possible recommendations for alternate measures that might be
substituted if this indeed is too severe.
So I think we ought to take heed of the inspector general's words and
also note the fact that just days before the subcommittee met to mark
up the bill the Secretary of the Department of Education said he was
not sure that any of these changes were needed or timely, and that the
Department asked for further time to study these matters. So this is a
matter, I think, of great interest to those who are following the
distance learning. We want to do everything we can to encourage it, but
we do have a unique responsibility as Members of Congress to make sure
that no jeopardy comes to the stability and financial integrity of the
student financial aid program.
I believe that that is what is at the heart of our disagreement
today, and I would hope that Members of Congress will listen to the
debate and vote against H.R. 1992.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished chairman
of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1992, and
I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner),
for the leadership that he has rendered to the committee this year and
for helping us get this bill to the floor.
We are here to consider a bill, H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and
Education Act of 2001, that will open the doors of higher education to
those who may not otherwise have an opportunity to walk through that
door. I know we have heard some friendly opposition from the other
side, but we have bent over backwards on this bill. We held a hearing
that was attended by members of the community that expressed broad
support for the measures in this bill. We scheduled a subcommittee
hearing, which we postponed due to some concerns that the other side
have to give sufficient time to move forward. We finally held that and
moved the bill out of subcommittee. Then we moved to full committee. It
was passed out of full committee after giving everyone a chance to have
full discussion and amendments, and it was voted on in a bipartisan
way, 31 to 10.
I am reminded of the story of the gentleman that said I want to
travel to California from Washington, and I am not going to leave until
every light is green between here and California. Sometimes we have to
start and move forward and take action, and I think now is the time.
I am grateful to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for
introducing H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001.
The service of the gentleman from Georgia as cochairman of the Web-
based Education Commission provided valuable insight into the
development of this legislation. He also serves as vice chairman of our
higher education subcommittee, the Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness, and is a great leader on that committee.
H.R. 1992 is a wonderful first step in implementing some of the
recommendations put forward by the Web-based Education Commission as it
expands the use of the Internet to increase access to educational
opportunities. This legislation makes minor changes to the Higher
Education Act, minor changes that will result in major opportunities
for the Nation's students.
In calling the changes minor, I am in no way diminishing their
potential impact. In making these changes, we took great care to ensure
that the integrity and stability of the student aid programs within the
Higher Education Act are preserved and protected. The concerns that the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) had of problems in the past are
well recognized. And we understand those concerns, and we have taken
adequate steps to make sure that those are preserved.
Through reporting requirements imposed on institutions, as well as a
report to Congress required of the Secretary, we will be kept informed
of the outcome of this legislation in a timely manner. This will serve
us well as we head into reauthorization of the Higher Education Act,
which will take place in 2003.
The provisions within this bill and the innovation it will allow us
has the support of many in the higher education community. As many of
my colleagues know, my subcommittee has been working on the Fed. Up
initiative. This project identifies needless or overly burdensome
regulations within the Higher Education Act and will try to bring some
sense to the regulations that the schools must deal with on a daily
basis.

{time} 1145

Of the more than 3,000 Fed. Up responses we have received and
catalogued, and we are not completely finished. More than 40 commenters
have requested that the 12-hour rule be eliminated, and H.R. 1992 does
that in response to their request.
Madam Speaker, 16 commenters requested that the 50 percent rule be
eliminated or modified; and H.R. 1992, in response to their request,
does that. Nineteen commenters have requested that the incentive
compensation rules be clarified, and H.R. 1992 does that. We are simply
being responsive to our constituents.
I have also received many letters in support of H.R. 1992. Those
letters include the National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators, a group of 3,100 schools; the American Council on
Education that represents 1,900 schools; the California Association of
Student Financial Aid Administrators; the California Student Aid
Commission; EdFund; Stevens Institute of Technology; the California
Postsecondary Education Commission; the University of Wisconsin
Extension; and many others offering their endorsement of this fine
bill.
One letter that was very timely came from St. Leo University, and I
would like to enter this letter as part of the Record. St. Leo
University is the sixth largest provider of higher education to
military-related personnel in the United States. It is also the first
college or university to grant a bachelor's degree on an Air Force
base. Its President, Arthur Kirk, wrote to support immediate passage of
H.R. 1992. Sixty percent of St. Leo's second-term enrollments for their
military students are for online courses, and it is not too much to say
that the events of the past several weeks will only accelerate that
trend.
We need to make sure those men and women whose lives are being
disrupted to defend the freedoms of this great country and the families
left at home have as many options as possible to continue their
education.
The Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001 provides a way to
accomplish that goal. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1992,
vote yes on the future of educational opportunities, vote yes on the
future of our Nation's students, and vote yes on the future of this
country.
The material previously referred to is as follows:
Saint Leo University,

Office of the President,

St. Leo, FL, September 25, 2001.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Chairman, House Education and Workforce Committee, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Boehner: I write to support the immediate
passage of H.R. 1992, the ``Internet Equity and Education Act
of 2001.'' H.R. 1992 will help to solve an urgent problem
related to the education of the United States Armed Services
enlisted personnel.
For several years, our military branches have wisely
encouraged and supported distance learning, particularly,
Internet courses intended to provide greater access and
flexibility in higher education for their personnel. You are
probably very familiar with E-Army University, perhaps the
highest profile initiative.
As the sixth largest provider of higher education to the
military and the first college or university in the United
States to grant the bachelors degree on an Air Force base,
Saint Leo University responded to the military's
encouragement with Internet courses. As we developed these
courses, our military students (and others) flocked to them.
As a member of E-Army University, we enroll the largest
numbers pursuing a bachelor's degree and are third largest in
E-Army University of the 29 Army accredited schools. Twenty-
five (25%) of our military center credits are taken on-line
compared to seven percent (7%) last fall, and these members
do not include our E-Army University students. Every soldier
or sailor who moves from a

[[Page H6473]]

classroom to an on-line course moves us closer to the 50%
limit by a function of two (one-less in class, one more on
line).
The attacks of September 11 and subsequent mobilization of
our military forces accelerates this trend rapidly. Indeed,
sixty percent of our preliminary enrollments for our second
fall term for the military are currently on-line! Saint Leo
University, one of the first and one of the largest in higher
education service to the United States military, will soon
hit the 50% limit.
Please implore your colleagues in both the House and Senate
to eliminate this artificial barrier for the sake of our men
and women serving in our Armed Forces.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Arthur F. Kirk, Jr.,
President.

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about what the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) spoke of, the need to take advantage
of the tremendous possibilities of modern educational technology in
this Internet age, particularly for nontraditional students. We want
that, but we must be careful how we go about it.
I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment that will be
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). As my colleagues
know, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has played a part in
every significant higher education law passed in Congress since 1965.
She is our expert on this subject. Her substitute amendment makes good
sense. We should listen and heed her experience. Let me speak for a
minute about this bill, especially for Members who may not have had an
opportunity to attend the hearings on H.R. 1992.
Back in the year 1992, Congress established new rules to safeguard
Federal student financial loan programs; and these rules were put into
effect because more than one student in five was defaulting on loans
within 2 years after leaving school. And these loan default rates were
much higher at some schools than others. It was a national disgrace, as
well as a waste of money. Cases of fraud and abuse were widespread and
were the subject of hearings here in Congress.
As a result, working together, Democrats and Republicans put in
safeguards that have protected students, the schools, and taxpayers and
brought student loan default rates down tremendously.
The legislation before us today, while attempting to update our
policies dealing with distance learning, alters or eliminates several
of these important protections. It makes these changes in an
environment where few Members have a clear understanding of what the
changes will mean.
That is part of the reason why H.R. 1992 is opposed by education
groups like the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education
Association, and the American Association of University Professors. It
is important to remember that next year Congress will begin
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Why these important
changes cannot wait for the full examination at that time, I do not
know.
Madam Speaker, I would like to talk for a moment about the so-called
12-hour rule, what it is and what it means to students and taxpayers. I
offered an amendment in committee that would have stricken the
provisions in this bill to eliminate the 12-hour rule, and I am pleased
that those provisions will be in the amendment to be offered by the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Simply put, H.R. 1992 eliminates the requirement in law that students
enroll in at least 12 hours of face-to-face course work to receive full
student financial aid. In 1992, the Higher Education Act did not define
what a full-time student was. The Department of Education, for
nonstandard students, defined a week of instruction as any week in
which at least 12 hours of instruction, examination, or preparation was
offered.
Well, there is general agreement among educators that the 12-hour
requirement of seat-time is not the only, probably not even the best
way to qualify for full-time pursuit of higher education.
Consider for a moment, would any reasonable person out in America say
that a student who logs on one day a week, not all day but some time,
one day a week, is a full-time student? That is not the way most people
in my district would define a full-time student. That would allow, I am
afraid, real abuse in the awarding of student loans to schools.
The Department of Education, in its recently released report,
``Student Financial Assistance and Nontraditional Educational
Programs,'' concluded there is a need for a policy change in this area
but that there is no consensus yet about what that change should be.
Further, last year two items related to nontraditional programs were
included in the Department's proposed agenda for negotiated rulemaking,
including application of a 12-hour rule.
We have heard about the Web-based Commission as the so-called reason
for this legislation before us today. The Web-based Commission did not
recommend any specific changes, such as changing the 12-hour rule to a
1-day rule. The commission merely encouraged the Federal Government to
review and, if necessary, revise. Those are the commission's words, to
revise these provisions.
The substitute amendment by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink)
would allow us to review these provisions before we revise them. We
certainly should do that. Abruptly changing the 12-hour rule to a 1-day
rule opens the door to fraud and abuse.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
(Mr. ISAKSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I include for the Record pages 90 through 94 of the Web-
based Education Commission.
Madam Speaker, it has been referenced that the Web-based Education
Commission was the genesis for the review of these rules and
regulations, and that is exactly correct. It has been alleged that the
commission made no recommendations, and that is incorrect. On those
pages, the 50 percent, the 12-hour rule, and the incentive compensation
are discussed.
The gentleman from New Jersey is correct, the recommendation was for
the Congress to review and recommend the changes in those regulations
to facilitate distance learning; and that is what the subcommittee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), did which became the genesis of this act which has been
renewed significantly.
Let me get away from the technical 50 percent, 12-hour, and incentive
compensation debate and talk in real terms. In real terms, the 1992
restrictions, many of which these three rules came out of, dealt more
with correspondence courses and less with telecommunications. In the 10
years since that time, universities all over this country have
dramatically expanded the delivery of educational content over the
Internet. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) asked what our
citizens might think if we said only logging on 1 day a week would
constitute a full-time education.
I ask what would our constituents think if we told them that Georgia
Tech, MIT, and Stanford offer master's degrees in electrical
engineering totally over the Web without visiting the campus. The fact
of the matter is, education is far ahead of us, and who is left behind
are those who are economically disadvantaged, yet academically
qualified to attend higher institutions all over the country.
Students, who because of distance or economics, cannot visit these
distinguished campuses and study are prohibited from getting student
loans. Therefore, those who have the wealth to do it can get an
education; but those who do not have the wealth but have the ability
are barred by the use of the Internet and the Web.
This is a very narrowly drawn bill. It only allows approved courses
to be offered from institutions that qualify under title IV. It
restricts any student loan being made to a student institution that has
a default rate of higher than 10 percent, and it authorizes the
Department to monitor it.
My last point deals with incentive compensation. The gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) is exactly correct.

[[Page H6474]]

There were abuses of incentive compensation. The Department of
Education did exactly what it should do to restrict incentive
compensation, and it did so in an environment where the delivery of
knowledge and availability of course work was not the same as it is
today. The unintended consequence of that rule as it exists prohibits
information from getting to students via the Internet and Web sites
based on interpretations of the compensation of those individuals. This
repeal of incentive compensation only says that an employee of an
organization who does not themselves directly make the loan may receive
a raise as long as it is not tied to the offering of any student loan
because the department head construed the previous prohibition against
incentive compensation to prohibit even a salary increase.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read the four pages that I
have submitted, to follow the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and Senator
Kerry, who was the chairman of this commission, and let us move
education forward so those who have the least available to them may
enjoy the benefits of those who otherwise can economically afford it.
The referenced material is as follows:

Some state requirements are mutually exclusive, making it
potentially impossible or impractical to create and adjust
web-based programs that meet varying state requirements.
A program may be forced to meet the lowest common
denominator to achieve homogeneity requirements.
Institutions in one state may refuse to accept credentials
awarded by institutions in other states.
Student aid eligibility may be limited for some students
involved in technology-mediated learning.
These issues were raised many times by witnesses testifying
at our hearings and through e-Testimony submissions to the
Commission. For instance, some states require no approval
process for establishing online programs; others require a
simple letter explaining their program. Yet another was
reported to require an institution to provide an all-expense
paid visit to its main location and honoraria to its staff.
Fees, reporting requirements, and time required for approval
also varied from immediate permission, to a two-year backlog
of applications followed by a two-year waiting period.
Beyond these intitutional concerns, there are additional
barriers for learners. The Internet now makes it possible for
a student to purchase a course from his or her local
university around the corner, or an institution half a world
away. But the same course can be priced very differently.
``In-state versus out-of-state tuition rates, non-profit
designation, non-profits spinning out for-profits, and for-
profit companies create a web of cost structures and tuition
regulations that prevent students from choosing the
curriculum and price that best meet their needs.'' This same
maze makes it difficult for students to transfer credits from
one institution to another and to create the personalized
programs that also best meet their needs.
The Internet allows for a learner-centered environment, but
our legal and regulatory framework has not adjusted to these
changes. ``Law is by its nature a slow and deliberative
process,, and the closer its orbit comes to the development
and use of technologies that are changing rapidly, the more
likely its impact will be unintended.''

federal statutory and regulatory barriers

The federal government has struggled to establish within
statute and regulations a framework that accommodates the
promise of the Internet for postsecondary education while
promoting access and ensuring accountability.
The effort has had mixed results.
Three specific federal issues were brought to the
Commission's attention: the ``12-hour rule,'' the ``50
percent rule,'' and the federal prohibition on providing
incentive compensation in college admissions.

the 12-hour rule

When Congress amended the Higher Education Act in 1992, it
added a specific definition of an academic year that
prescribed at least 30 weeks of instructional time. Full-time
undergraduate students in traditional academic programs are
expected to complete at least 24 semester hours or trimester
hours (or 36 quarter hours, or 900 clock hours) in that time
period to be eligible for the maximum amount of financial aid
under the Title IV program.
However, the law was silent on establishing an academic
workload requirement for students enrolled in Title IV
eligible programs offered in a nontraditional time segment.
To deal with this, the U.S. Department of Education
developed regulations to implement the statutory definition
of an academic year, including establishing full-time
workload requirements for students enrolled in programs
offered in nontraditional time segments. In 1994, the
Department issued formal regulations defining a week of
instructional time to mean 12 hours of ``regularly scheduled
instructions, examinations, or preparation for examination''
for programs that are not offered in standard terms.

the 50 percent rule

Likewise, the ``50 percent rule'' requires Title IV-
eligible institutions to offer at least 50 percent of their
instruction in a classroom-based environment. The basis of
this rule is to assure that a student is physically
participating in an academic course of study for which he or
she is receiving federal student financial assistance. In
enacting this provision in the 1992 Higher Education
Amendments, Congress sought to address concerns about fraud
and abuse within the correspondence school industry.
While understanding that physical seat time may not be an
appropriate measure of quality for the increasing
proliferation of online distance learning programs, the
Department views these two rules as important measures of
accountability that should not be eliminated or replaced
unless there is a viable alternative.
In recent months, public, independent, and proprietary
colleges and universities have called for the elimination of
the 12-hour rule and the 50 percent rule or, at minimum, a
moratorium on their enforcement.
These institutions argue that the rules simply don't make
sense in light of online distance education and the growing
use of the Internet for instructional delivery. As one
witness put it: ``If we are to be required to assess
educational quality and learning by virtue of how long a
student sits in a seat, we have focused on the wrong end of
the student.
Far from creating incentives for students and institutions
to experiment with new distance education methodologies
offered anytime, anyplace, and at any pace, the current
student financial aid regulations discourage innovation. If a
student cannot travel to an institution and participate in
face-to-face instruction, that student may only qualify
for reduced financial aid. The practical impact is a
system of federal student financial assistance that gives
substantial preference to the mainstream educational
experience.
In seeking correctly to halt abuse in the student financial
aid program, these rules may, in fact, have the unintended
effect of curtailing educational opportunity among thousands
who seek financial aid for college, but who do not otherwise
fit into the mainstream definition of a college student.
Consider these statistics:
The span from 1970 to 1993 saw a 235 percent growth in
students over age 40.
Over the same time period, the traditional college student
cohort (age 18-24) increased by 35 percent.
Forty percent of these students received financial aid, as
opposed to only 17 percent of undergraduates over the age of
40.
The U.S. Department of Education is beginning to identify
potential alternatives to providing student aid to those
enrolled in online programs. In October 2000, it convened
dozens of representatives of traditional and nontraditional
postsecondary institutions, higher education associations,
and the student financial aid sector to address alternatives
to the 12-hour rule. The Department's position has been that
a wholesale elimination of these rules would leave the door
wide open for abuse--and the history of the Title IV program
has been marked with such episodes. Instead, the Department
is seeking to identify alternatives to current regulation,
and assess whether or not they may be more appropriate
than current seat-time measures. The Department holds
strongly to the belief, however, that rules of some kind
are necessary under any circumstance.
Institutions take a different position. Many question the
need for the Department to be involved on the regulatory side
at all since these institutions already are subject to two
sets of quality controls: approval for participation in the
Title IV program and accreditation and licensure. They argue
that if the problem is with accrediting agencies that are not
organized to assess quality effectively in an online learning
setting, the answer is to reform the accreditation process,
not add another enforcement layer upon postsecondary
institutions.
The University of Phoenix, among the nation's oldest
distance learning proprietary institutions, offered the
following recommendations in support of this view:
Rely on the accrediting bodies to make determinations about
the quality of online distance learning programs and
encourage that they hold such programs and providers to the
same set of standards that are expected of face-to-face
instruction. No less should be expected from these programs,
but indeed no more should be expected. If there are flaws in
the system of accreditation, then the Department should be
directed to review those entities, rather than duplicate the
efforts of accreditation.
Re-evaluate the criteria for accreditation. By statute,
accrediting bodies are required to evaluate certain elements
of an institution in making accreditation decisions. Most of
these factors are input-based and have little demonstrated
relationship to student learning. Accrediting bodies should
be required to focus on outcomes and it is only in this way
that any meaningful evaluation of web-based education can be
made.
The Department is hosting several working groups with the
higher education community

[[Page H6475]]

to focus on student aid funding for online programs,
alternative input and output measures of online quality, and
the role of accreditation in assuring academic integrity in
the Title IV program. A result could be a statement of the
problem and potential alternatives to be considered by
Congress and/or Department regulators.
Additionally, the Department will analyze the results of
the Distance Education Demonstration Program authorized by
the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. This program
exempts 15 institutions and consortia of institutions from
the different rules and regulations limiting student
financial aid for online postsecondary learners. The goal
is to encourage distance education providers to experiment
with alternative measurements of online quality and gather
data on the success of these alternatives. The results
will be presented to Congress along with any proposed
changes the Department recommends in this area.

ban on incentive compensation plans

In 1992, Congress prohibited colleges and universities that
participate in the federal student financial aid program from
paying any commission, bonus, or other incentive payments to
third party entities based directly or indirectly on their
success in helping to secure enrollment of students.
The provision was enacted to protect students against
abusive recruiting tactics, although the law is now being
interpreted to apply to the enrollment of students via ``Web
portals.'' These online ``Yellow Pages'' are commonly
financed through the use of referral fees and tuition-sharing
agreements. Although not the original intent, the language of
this restriction effectively bars higher education
institutions that participate in Title IV from using third-
party Web portals to provide prospective students with access
to information about many institutions or provide the same
services as institutions offer on their own Web sites--that
is, information and application processing.
Current federal regulations permit an institution to use
its own Web site to recruit students. However, if the
institution pays a Web portal to provide the same passive,
asynchronous service, and that payment is based on the number
of prospective students visiting the site who ultimately
apply or enroll, the institution is at risk of losing its
Title IV eligibility. Higher education groups have asked the
Department to consider changing regulatory language,
reflecting the growing reliance of higher education consumers
on Web portals. However, the Department has concluded that
this provision could only be changed through new legislation.

``The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the
labour of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science
and useful Arts. To this end, copyright assures authors the
right to their original expression, but encourages others to
build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a
work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is
the means by which copyright advances the progress of science
and art.''
``In a digital age, the organization of data and editorial
function of summarizing, hyperlinking, and relating diverse
sources of data to meet specific ad hoc needs adds value to
content, and represents an emerging class of intellectual
capital that goes beyond the concept of `derivative works' or
similar earlier classifications . . . The Internet turns
`consumption' of electronic media into a Breeder Reactor
scenario for knowledge building. Effective use of these
materials results in additional fuel to power learning in the
classroom.''

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) to
control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because I
believe it properly reconciles two forces in our new world that need to
be reconciled. The first is that people are very busy living their
lives, working their full-time jobs, dealing with the needs of their
children, dealing with their household needs. We are all stressed and
pressured and do not have a lot of time.
The second reality is almost everyone in almost every job needs to
continuously upgrade his or her skills and keep learning. So how does
one keep learning? How does one go back to school if one has
responsibility for children and work and household stresses.
Madam Speaker, one of the ways that more and more people are doing
this is by learning online, by taking advantage of this virtual
university that is being created around America and around the world.
Unfortunately, the financial aid rules that confront people today
unduly restrict many people from participating in this virtual
university. The purpose of this bill is to open the door of the virtual
university for those who must depend upon financial aid.
I have listened very intently to the concerns of the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and I must say no Member of this House is more
responsible for the success that we have had in greatly reducing
defaults than the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). When I arrived
in this House 11 years ago, we were spending $5.3 billion a year on
unpaid defaulted student loans.

{time} 1200

The gentlewoman from Hawaii was one of the leaders in 1992 and then
again in 1998 in enacting some major changes in the law, and the result
of those changes has been that the cost of student defaults is now
below $1 billion per year. I applaud her for her leadership in that
area.
I come to a different conclusion about the impact of these changes,
however. I think that the changes that are made are inconsequential to
dealing with the default problem. I think the remaining provisions that
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) made reference to will
continue us on the track of minimizing or even eliminating defaults.
And I think the value of opening the doors to America's virtual
university makes it worthwhile to support this bill.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1992, the Internet
Equity and Education Act of 2001. The adult student, or the
nontraditional student, is the fastest growing population of students
in higher education. These students have different needs and different
pressures than the traditional student. Many have families and jobs
that require much of their time and attention. American universities
and colleges have been working diligently to meet these unique needs of
this student population by using technology and advanced
telecommunications, including the Internet, to make it easier to attend
and participate in classes while ensuring program integrity. Their
successes have been acknowledged by recognized accreditation bodies.
That is great. America needs an educated populace. America needs an
educated workforce. American colleges and universities should be
rewarded for developing new and innovative ways to remove the barriers
that prevent people from obtaining an education.
Unfortunately, accredited American colleges and universities have
been punished by outdated and outmoded Federal regulations. These
regulations limit the number of distant learning courses a college or
university can offer. They define the academic year and academic week
in ways that never contemplated advancements in technology and distance
learning. As a result, one college located in the district I represent
may have to return a significant portion of its title IV funds because
it offers distant learning courses that do meet the needs of many
students but do not meet outdated Federal regulations.
This bill corrects the inadequacies of current regulations. It gives
American colleges and universities the flexibility to provide
educational opportunities to students who would not otherwise be able
to pursue higher education, and it does so while maintaining fiscal and
program integrity in Federal financial aid programs.
In 2 years, Congress will reauthorize the Higher Education Act. By
making these improvements now, Congress will have an opportunity to
review their success and effectiveness in just 2 short years. With
technology and the Internet changing the landscape of higher education
so quickly and so often, Congress needs to act now. The Internet
Education and Equity Act is a step in the right direction. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank my colleague and ranking member of the
subcommittee for yielding me this time.

[[Page H6476]]

Madam Speaker, this is not an argument about whether we will move
forward or not. This is an argument of just how we will move forward.
Everybody seems to understand what the purpose of the two rules, the
12-hour rule and the 50 percent provision, are. The question is how are
we going to deal with those issues as we move forward. How are we going
to assure that there are standards adequate to ensure our students a
good quality education and protect the financial aid money over which
we are the stewards.
Nobody really disagrees with the fact that the 12-hour rule and the
50 percent provision need to be addressed. Some time ago, in 1998, when
the Higher Education Act was being reauthorized, the now chairman of
our subcommittee showed his leadership by saying we should have a
demonstration program. Now he has changed that and his leadership is
taking us in a different direction, but some of us would like to stay
the course. As the stewards of this financial aid money, it made sense
that 25 institutions would start on a demonstration program and gather
the data and the information we would need to determine what would
replace the 12-hour rule, what would replace the 50 percent provision,
what is it that we would have there as a standard that our students
would always feel comfortable they were getting a quality education,
and just how is it that we would know as a Congress that we were wisely
spending this money going forward.
It is one thing to say that the protection is that these moneys are
only going to accredited schools, that would be great, because some
schools truly do set strong quality controls in distant learning
courses. But unfortunately not all of them do. And, in fact, most
accreditation bodies have not addressed this issue, have not determined
and laid out quality and standards for what would constitute a good
distance learning course over the Internet. So as Congress, that is not
our job. We generally look at those accrediting agencies and look at
their guidance. They have not set it yet. I would suggest that they are
waiting for the demonstration program results of the Department of
Education's program that was supposed to gather this data and gather
the information so that we could protect that money and protect the
students.
Distance learning is not standing still while we debate this issue
and while we wait for that demonstration to give us results and
information. It is continuing on at many colleges and universities,
some in my own district and in the State for sure, but the fact of the
matter is having learned once in our history of what can happen when
you have correspondence courses that get out of control and find out
too late that money that is very scarce, money that students who do not
have the resources of other wealthy students need in order to get their
education, if that is gone by the time we correct this problem, we will
have wished that we stayed and got the results of those demonstration
programs and moved forward only on that basis.
Is no face time, face-to-face interaction with instructors or with
other learners the best idea? Does the age and life experiences of the
type of materials being taught have any impact on whether or not some
class time is needed traditionally, or whether it can all go over the
Internet? Is there no role for visual and verbal interactions in a
social setting as part of the learning environment? Those are questions
that have yet to be addressed and need to be addressed at many of the
institutions that want to offer these types of courses.
We have these demonstration programs out there. We have a
reauthorization coming up in just a couple of years. It was originally
the intent of this Congress that we allow those 25 institutions to
provide that demonstration, to give us the information and data upon
which we could make sound and reasoned judgments. While the commission
has attempted to point us in the direction saying these issues need
attention, we know that. And while the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Isakson) and others, I think, are doing a noble thing in trying to move
forward, speed is not always the best process. I say nothing is
stopping people from offering these courses, but what is happening is
we are being stopped from basing our decisions on what the quality of
those courses will be and what the protection for scarce resources and
financial aid will be if we move forward precipitously.
Madam Speaker, we need to know that we are doing the right thing. Let
us wait for the results of those demonstration programs and let us move
forward on the substitute amendment that the gentlewoman from Hawaii is
putting forward.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my
good friend from Massachusetts on his point on waiting for the
demonstration project.
The Department of Education, who is administering the project, has
the first year's report and they support the bill. They found no
problem in moving forward at this time with the bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Osborne), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, a new member of the committee who comes with great
expertise. We called him, for many years, Coach.
Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1992,
the Internet Equity and Education Act. I would like to thank the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for their efforts
in crafting this bill.
Madam Speaker, I represent a very large district that is roughly 350
miles by 250 miles. It is relatively sparsely populated. I think the
largest community is about 35,000 and it goes down very quickly from
that point on. And so many of the people in my district, as a matter of
fact probably the majority, live some distance from the nearest
institution of higher learning. Many of them live 100, 150 miles from
the nearest college or junior college and so distance learning has
become critical for them.
Many nontraditional students, as my colleagues know, work full-time
jobs. We also find that students in many small rural schools are able
to get some specialized education that they cannot otherwise get
through distance learning. So if you want to take advanced physics,
French, German, or English as a second language, it is almost
impossible for these students to get this type of education and
instruction unless they do it through distance learning. We find that
that has been very critical.
Another thing that is very important in rural areas has been the
issue of rural health care. We have a tremendous shortage of nurses.
Everybody in the country has a shortage of nurses, but it is
particularly critical in rural areas. And so we have found that nurses
who are employed full time are able to take courses, upgrade their
status, sometimes get their degrees, advanced degrees through distance
learning, and that has been very, very important to us.
Finally, let me just point this out. We have one university in the
State of Nebraska that offers an accredited degree in pharmacy. And so
if you are living out in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 450 miles away, and you
want to get a degree in pharmacy and you have to drive to Omaha, that
is about a 10-hour drive. That means every time you go sit in that
classroom, you are taking 2 days off from work, one day to go down
there, one day to come back, maybe sit there at night. Therefore, we
find that this has been onerous. In this sense I think waiving the 12-
hour rule is very important for people who have to drive long distances
and particularly to get specialized degrees.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. As has been
pointed out by my colleagues, this legislation would repeal the 50
percent cap. It would eliminate the 12-hour rule. And it would clarify
the restrictions on commissions paid for student recruiters.
The concerns that many of my colleagues have raised, I think, are
valid. I think we are all aware of them. We have tried to address them
in this legislation and also with expressing our

[[Page H6477]]

concerns to the Department. It was not that long ago, and obviously
many of my colleagues will remember this, the fraud that plagued the
student aid programs, where we saw people organizing themselves in a
manner to get young people to apply for student aid and had no
intention of delivering them an education. We spent a long time
changing that program and the gentlewoman from Hawaii was one of the
leaders in that effort to do that. But I think this is a different
kettle of fish in the sense that I believe that what we are trying to
do is recognize the reality of what has taken place in the area of
distance learning and recognizing that, in fact, the rules that we are
waiving here really have very little to do with increasing the risk to
the aid programs.
We have also made it very clear that those programs, if the Secretary
thinks they need to, can require the 50 percent rule if he finds there
is a significant risk of fraud or abuse. Schools have to notify us if
they are going to not meet the 12-hour rule.
We have also accepted in the committee the amendment of the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Wu) to provide for the assessment of this program as
we go forward.
But I think, in fact, what this will allow us to do is to go forward
in real time to allow the maximum amount of flexibility and utilization
of this program that really offers great promise to students in so many
different settings, whether they are working full time or part time or
whether they are just beginning their education, or even, in a number
of instances, young people in high school who want to try to get some
of their lower division units out of the way can do it by distance
learning and have no opportunity to go to that university because they
live in rural areas or isolated areas. I think we ought to make sure
that we give them that opportunity.
Colleges still must be certified as nonprofit accrediting
associations recognized by the Secretary and still have to be State
approved and licensed. The default rates have been addressed. So I
think we have put together a pretty good bill.
I think, also, it is pretty clear that the current rules and
regulations really did not contemplate the vast use and opportunity of
the Internet as we now know it. I think the members of this committee
have also understood and we have made it clear to the Department of
Education, to schools and to States and others that we are taking some
risk here.

{time} 1215

We are going to be paying attention and we are going to be watching
to see what happens here. Many Members have spoken about the
reauthorization coming up in 2003.
I think this legislation will give us an opportunity to see exactly
what is taking place on the ground. If there are abuses, we will have
the opportunity in a timely fashion to address those abuses; but we
cannot deny the importance that distance learning is playing every day
in all of our universities. From the great private universities, to the
public universities, to community colleges, to trade schools and to
others, this is an opportunity for so many people to have access to an
education, where before they simply would not be able to get there or
they would have to give up income to their families to participate in
it.
I would hope that we would pass this legislation. I would say,
however, that I think the concerns that are being raised by Members on
my side of the aisle are valid concerns, and we have got to pay
attention to them. If people are going to take advantage of this, we
ought to make sure that that not be allowed to continue and that we
correct those, if that should happen.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Education Reform.
(Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation. I
believe that Senator Kerry and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson)
did a wonderful job with the study of this. I would just point out, I
will not submit this for the Record, but I would submit to Members in
the present edition of U.S. News & World Report of October 15, about a
third of that magazine is filled with eight articles about Internet
education, warts and all, about what we are doing. It just confirms
what the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) said, and that is that we
are probably a little bit behind in doing what we are doing in this
legislation.
I think when they put together their group which studied this program
last year and what we had to do and then came up with the Internet
Equity and Education Act with all the aspects of this, we are merely
playing catch-up, and perhaps that is what we should be doing, as
opposed to what is in the marketplace.
A lot of people are being educated by the use of these programs. A
lot of very good educational institutions, including the best colleges
and universities in this country, as well as some high schools, are now
putting out course activities over the Internet. This gives everybody
the opportunity to be able to take full advantage of this. The Web-
based Education Commission I think has done an exceptional job in doing
that.
I think it levels the playing field between some regular education
and this. Frankly, I for one as one who was never exposed to this
education, when I was in school there was not an Internet, I believe
very strongly after all my reading and talking to other people, some of
these courses are every bit as demanding as the courses that you would
take in person. They can be just as instructional.
For all these reasons, I think this is a fine piece of legislation
and something that should be hopefully supported by virtually all
Members of this Congress. I would encourage support of the legislation
by all of us. If one has any doubts about it, read about it; and I
think after they have done that, they, too, will support this
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 1992,
the Internet Equity and Education Act.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Johnny Isakson)
both for his leadership in seeking new ways to expand and improve
learning opportunities and for the legislation before us today.
In November 1999, the Web-Based Education Commission was established
to develop policy recommendations designed to maximize the educational
promise of the Internet.
Chairman Bob Kerrey, former Senator from Nebraska, and Vice Chair
Johnny Isakson met with hundreds of education, business, and technology
experts and, based on these meetings, produced the most comprehensive
report ever written on the impact of web-based learning on education.
Most significant, the report focused on how to move the Internet
``from promise to practice'' and it identified laws and regulations
that blocked access to online learning resources, courses, and
programs.
Today, we take the first step in removing those obstacles and
supporting ``anytime, anywhere'' learning with H.R. 1992.
Among other things, the bill:
Expands access to higher education by modifying the rule to allow
colleges and universities to offer more than 50 percent of their
classes through telecommunications if they participate in good standing
in the federal loan program.
Levels the playing field by applying the same requirement--that
students attend one day of instruction a week--on nontraditional
students as on traditional students.
The bill also provides important protections to maintain the
integrity of the instructional programs being offered to students
receiving financial aid. And, by acting now, we will have an
opportunity to review the impact of the legislation when we reauthorize
the Higher Education Act in 2003.
I believe this legislation will do much to enhance learning and I am
pleased to support its passage.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my concern regarding
H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. With life's
demands and responsibilities, those who seek to improve their skills
and advance their education are seeking alternatives to traditional
colleges and universities. As we move into the 21st century, the
Internet has proven to be a useful and

[[Page H6478]]

powerful tool in providing distance learning courses across the Net.
While I do strongly support nontraditional schools and the use of the
Internet in education, H.R. 1992 eliminates the protections implemented
several years ago to protect against abuse and fraud and unadvisedly
impacts on the expansion of distance learning.
During congressional hearings before my committee several years ago,
case after case revealed fraud and abuse, especially from for-profit
and correspondence schools. Students were subject to aggressive and
deceptive recruiting tactics. They were enrolled in classes they did
not want and need. They had instructors that were not even there and
that many times were inept and did not show up.
To add salt to the wound, the same students who took out loans to pay
for useless education were harassed and ultimately sued because of
defaults on loans. Some proprietary schools in my district encouraged
students to apply to their schools for loans far beyond their needs
were recommended. Equipment and tuition costs were taken out first. In
many instances, students stayed there for several years, gaining no
real education or skills, but then were asked to repay these loans and
harassed.
The committee recognized in 1998 a need to enact a 12-hour rule to
ensure that nontraditional programs offered the same amount of
instruction as traditional schools. Right now, H.R. 1992 offers no
guarantee to make certain the amount of educational instruction is
comparable and sufficient.
We must not move in haste to change provisions that have contributed
to the reversal of high-default loans of the 1990s. These safeguards
have contributed in ending deception and fraud and created a standard
that has ensured a quality education for all students.
The substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink)
will help distance education grow, but to grow in a proper sense; to
grow so that it is not fraught with fraud. We need to protect against
abuse; and if we have the abuse, we need to be careful that aggressive
recruiting tactics as we saw in the past are not included.
Therefore, I strongly urge support for the Mink substitute to this
premature bill.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a new member of our committee, not a new
Member of Congress, a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1992, the
Internet Equity and Education Act offered by my friend, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). I commend the gentleman and the gentleman
from California (Chairman McKeon) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner) for their work in moving this important legislation through
the subcommittee and the full committee. They have the far-sighted
appreciation for what Web-based education promises people all across
this country, especially people in a district like mine, which
comprises a vast rural area and smaller cities, and especially people
in innercities. This is a tremendous opportunity to bring educational
opportunities to the people.
As many of us know, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson)
dutifully chaired the Web-based Education Commission that was
authorized by Congress in 1998. This commission was charged with
discovering how the Internet was being used to enhance learning
opportunities for all, no small duty, considering the rapidly changing
environment of the Internet and different learning experiences for
students of all ages.
As elementary and secondary schools experience growing enrollments,
shortages of teachers and higher demands, college campuses also face
obstacles. Many colleges in my district face ever-increasing growth in
student enrollment. All of these institutions seek to provide access to
the Internet and tools for the information age. Unfortunately, the
Federal Government has struggled to establish a framework that
accommodates the future of the Internet for post-secondary
institutions.
Madam Speaker, today Congress has the ability to knock down barriers
that limit access to higher education. This bill will expand
opportunities for nontraditional students and give other students
greater access to the availability of post-secondary education
programs.
H.R. 1992 will allow institutions to offer more than 50 percent of
their classes by telecommunications. While opponents fear abuse of the
system or fraud by negligent institutions, the Committee on Education
and the Workforce came up with a good solution to this concern. This 50
percent rule will only apply to programs whose student loan-default
rate is less than 10 percent for the 3 most recent years.
H.R. 1992 also allows institutions to notify the Secretary of
Education if they intend to offer an eligible program with less than 12
scheduled hours of instruction per week. This provision will eliminate
a Department rule that established a Federal standard for classroom
instruction. This change only seems necessary due to the changing
landscape of distance learning and post-secondary education.
Madam Speaker, when the regulatory process fails to address the needs
of a changing environment, it is Congress' duty to step in and make
necessary changes. H.R. 1992 addresses these needs and does so in a way
to ensure accountability.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and to oppose the
substitute.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the
Mink amendment. I am a strong supporter of extending educational
opportunities for nontraditional students through distance learning.
Academic institutions that meet current requirements are dramatically
extending their options, and that is a good thing, and I strongly
support that.
So why am I rising on this amendment? Well, it is really a question
of consumer protection. We need to make sure that the students who are
paying tuition are getting a quality academic program, because when
they do not, when they do not get that quality academic program, they
default on their education loans; and we have a responsibility to
guarantee academic integrity so that we limit those defaults.
We must avoid fraud, and it has been mentioned here there are some
ways that the bill is dealing with that. But we need to avoid that
fraud. Right now we do not really have any definition of what that is.
We need to avoid abuse by reducing the requirement to one log-on a
week, and we have to develop a consensus on how we change this
standard. I would suggest that that standard is really not in play
today.
The whole issue of whether or not the military and the extension
programs provided for the military are in jeopardy here, I would submit
to you they are not. The Army and Navy have long had academic programs
under the present distance learning rules with quality programs and
institutions; and I just am delighted to see the way in which those
programs have developed. I know many, many individuals from San Diego
serving on ships take advantage of those programs today.
Extension of these programs is not jeopardized by this amendment. We
should be more concerned about assuring the quality of education for
our military and continue to support quality programs such as they have
today. They will not be jeopardized by this amendment.
The 50 percent rule has served as a filter to developing businesses
that are primarily profit-centered rather than extensions of
opportunity for valid economic experience. We do not want to allow
marketing with bounties.
The pilot project that we have been talking about should be honored
in the next 2 years, so we can really consider its results when the
reauthorization of higher education occurs. That is what they were
instituted for, and that is how we need to look at them.
Congress has the responsibility to assure high-quality education and
the expansion of distance learning programs. That is what we are all
about today. I appreciate all the hard work that has been put into this
bill. Programs that are academically reviewed by their accredited
institutions assure comparable quality to on-campus programs. They
provide the standards that

[[Page H6479]]

students expect when they pay federally funded tuition.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who came to the
floor to debate this very important bill. I will take the opportunity
to offer my substitute next, where we will have a larger opportunity to
expand on it.
Again, I hope that the bill will be defeated, and for good reasons.
As the trustees of the Student Financial Aid Program, we have a special
responsibility. I look upon this legislation as threatening the
stability that we have earned and gained as a result of the protections
that we instituted in 1992.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take some time to respond to the
concerns that have been raised by my good friend and ranking member on
the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), about the need to make these changes now, just 2
years before we start to reauthorize the Higher Education Act.

{time} 1230

In a hearing before the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness,
Dr. Stanley Ikenberry, then president of the American Council on
Education, now a professor of political science at the University of
Illinois, testified that Congress should quickly consider H.R. 1992, as
the Department has been unable or unwilling to make changes as part of
the regulatory process. By making the changes now, Congress will have 2
years to monitor the impact of the amendments and can easily make any
necessary mid-course corrections as part of the coming reauthorization.
More importantly, Mr. Ikenberry stated, ``We need to make the changes
now, because distance education is changing the postsecondary education
landscape so quickly. If changes are not made now, we will have to wait
until after the higher education reauthorization and, most likely,
until after the rulemaking process that follows a reauthorization. This
could easily mean a delay of 4 or 5 years.''
Mr. Speaker, 4 or 5 years to a 17- or 18-year-old, they could lose
their whole education process during this period of time; and I think
it is very important that we are expeditious. Mr. Ikenberry's most
compelling case to enact legislation now is the fact that we have the
opportunity to gather needed information to address this issue for the
next reauthorization. It will help us in that process.
At the same time, we have an opportunity to expand access to higher
education to those with the most need and to those who cannot afford to
take classes on a traditional quarter or semester basis. I encourage my
colleagues to strongly support and vote for H.R. 1992.
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the birth of a new
technological era.
Today, our lives are connected to computers more than ever before. We
have them in our homes and offices. We even have them in our cars.
Today, our cars have more computing power than the Apollo spacecraft.
Tomorrow, we will be even more reliant on these powerful machines.
As our lives become more intertwined in technology, so does our
education.
Technology is transforming our colleges and universities and changing
the way we teach and learn subjects. In just three years, the number of
distance education courses offered by two and four years institutions
increased from 24,703 in 1995 to 52,270 in 1998.
The Internet has provided us with an alternative way to take and
receive classroom instruction.
The power of distance education is exciting. Now, people who did not
have access to a college or university can earn a degree by turning on
their computer.
I agree that we need to help our colleges and universities offer more
distance education courses. One of the ways to do this is to ensure
that students who study through distance learning have the same access
to student aid programs.
However, it is important that we also maintain the protections that
are built into the law to prevent fraud and abuse.
I applaud Representative Isakson for taking the lead on such an
important initiative, and I am grateful for his willingness to work
with me to address some of my concerns.
Accordingly, by working with my colleagues, I was able to get
language in this bill requiring the Secretary of Education to issue a
report on the impact of this bill in March 2003.
Specifically, the Secretary must report on the effect this
legislation has had on education program integrity. If abuse happens,
we will know about it and will be able to address it.
The Secretary must also report on the outcomes for students enrolled
in distance education or correspondence education courses.
Specifically, the Secretary must report on the graduation rates, job
placement rates, loan delinquencies and default rates of the students
involved in distance education.
This is not an empty promise. It will help us ensure that students
enrolled in distance education courses are receiving a quality
education. It will help ensure that the schools offering these courses
are not abusing their privileges. And most importantly, it will help
expand distance learning opportunities and open a door to a brighter
future for countless students.
It is imperative that we preserve the quality of education being
offered our students. These changes guarantee such quality.
I support this bill. I support distance education.
As our society becomes more technologically advanced, so should our
classrooms, courses, and teaching methods.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1992, the
Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. First I want to thank
Chairman Boehner and Subcommittee Chairman McKeon for supporting and
guiding our Committee efforts on this bill. I certainly want to
recognize and congratulate my friend and colleague who authored the
bill, Johnny Isakson.
This bill will help to expand access to higher education for many
Americans who may or may not be able to attend a postsecondary
institution for a variety of reasons. By supporting this effort we will
encourage non-traditional students to use technology, and give
potential students greater access to information on the availability of
postsecondary education programs.
I have listened carefully to the comments on both sides of the aisle
regarding the issues on the potential risks to the quality of
instruction and to maintaining a certain level of fiscal integrity for
student financial aid. There were some incisive issues raised on
incentive compensation as well as in the accreditation arena.
My own criticisms included the lack of minority participation in the
on-going Department of Education study on distance education. In this
regard, the Committee leadership has agreed with my request for a study
by the General Accounting Office to focus on aspects of the bill and
the status of distance education among Minority Serving Institutions.
We want the results of the study to supplement the findings of the
Department of Education study on these issues.
I have a deep respect for Mr. Miller and the members of our Committee
who offered strong views on the pertinent issues in the bill. While not
all amendments were accepted, a certain number were included in order
to strengthen the bill.
These issues should be revisited during the pending higher education
reauthorization. We can also reasonably argue that if we monitor the
provisions in this bill, we will have much better information to guide
us during the reauthorization.
I know that the author of the legislation wants to increase distance
learning opportunities for many who have been overlooked and I join him
in his effort. I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this
bill.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Internet Equity
and Education Act, H.R. 1992. There is vast potential for distance
learning to transform higher education. Used properly it could improve
the quality and affordability of higher education and life-long
learning programs. Further, online education could expand access,
particularly to individuals with disabilities and those isolated in
rural communities.
H.R. 1992 would lift financial aid limits for students enrolled in
courses through telecommunications, reduce funding limitations for
correspondence courses, and repeal the ``12 hour rule,'' a regulation
that governs the amount of time students must spend in class per week.
By updating these regulations, Congress acknowledges the increased role
of technology in our education system. It is important for Congress to
work with institutions of higher education to expand opportunities to
all students through the emerging field of distance learning.
While distance education opens new doors, it also creates new
challenges to ensure the integrity of the student financial aid
programs. We don't want to return to the days of fly-by-night schools
that took student financial aid dollars money but failed to provide the
students an education. I appreciate Mr. Isakson's

[[Page H6480]]

and the majority's willingness to include safeguards in H.R. 1992 to
curtail the potential for fraud and abuse in the student aid programs.
Mr. Speaker, higher education is a key tool of success in our
society. Distance learning provides increased opportunities for those
who face barriers in the pursuit of higher education. We must not let
obsolete rules and regulations deny individuals access to higher
education and life-long learning programs. I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 1992.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. This is a bad bill
because it is a failed attempt to implement the recommendations of the
Web-based Education Commission. H.R. 1992 suggests that face to face
interaction with an instructor does not matter in education.
Mr. Speaker, distance learning can be a great asset as long as
academic decision making is placed in the hands of teaching
professionals rather than corporate marketing professionals.
I believe that students benefit more when there is considerable face
to face interaction with instructors. Creating situations in which
students and teachers work together in the same physical location over
a period of time is a critical component of a successful higher
education environment. H.R. 1992 minimizes this principle by
eliminating the requirement that students enroll in at least 12 hours
of face to face coursework to receive full federal student aid.
Also, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1992 ends the 50% rule under which
institutions must offer no more than half of their coursework by
distance education in order for their students to receive federal
student aid.
These rules were put in place for a number of reasons, which protect
the integrity federal student aid program. First, these rules were put
in place as protections against fraud and abuse in the federal aid
program. Cases of fraud and abuse were widespread and were the subject
of congressional hearings. Those who benefited included for-profit
schools and correspondence schools. While not perfect, these rules have
protected the federal student aid program as well as promoted ``same-
time, same-place'' interaction as part of a student's academic program.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). All time for general debate
has expired.

Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs.
Mink of Hawaii:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Equity and
Education Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO 50 PERCENT CORRESPONDENCE COURSE
LIMITATIONS.

(a) Definition of Institution of Higher Education for Title
IV Purposes.--Section 102(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(7) Exception to limitation based on course of study.--
Courses offered via telecommunications (as defined in section
484(l)(4)) shall not be considered to be correspondence
courses for purposes of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph
(3) for any institution that--
``(A) is participating in either or both of the loan
programs under part B or D of title IV on the date of
enactment of the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001;
``(B) has a cohort default rate (as determined under
section 435(m)) for each of the 3 most recent fiscal years
for which data are available that is less than 10 percent;
and
``(C)(i) has notified the Secretary, in a form and manner
prescribed by the Secretary (including such information as
the Secretary may require to meet the requirements of clause
(ii)), of the election by such institution to qualify as an
institution of higher education by means of the provisions of
this paragraph; and
``(ii) the Secretary has not, within 90 days after such
notice, and the receipt of any information required under
clause (i), notified the institution that the election by
such institution would pose a significant risk to Federal
funds and the integrity of programs under title IV.''.
(b) Definition of Eligible Student.--Section 484(l)(1) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(l)(1)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Exception to 50 percent limitation.--Notwithstanding
the 50 percent limitation in subparagraph (A), a student
enrolled in a course of instruction described in such
subparagraph shall not be considered to be enrolled in
correspondence courses if the student is enrolled in an
institution that--
``(i) is participating in either or both of the loan
programs under part B or D of title IV on the date of
enactment of the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001;
``(ii) has a cohort default rate (as determined under
section 435(m)) for each of the 3 most recent fiscal years
for which data are available that is less than 10 percent;
and
``(iii)(I) has notified the Secretary, in form and manner
prescribed by the Secretary (including such information as
the Secretary may require to meet the requirements of
subclause (II)), of the election by such institution to
qualify its students as eligible students by means of the
provisions of this subparagraph; and
``(II) the Secretary has not, within 90 days after such
notice, and the receipt of any information required under
subclause (I), notified the institution that the election by
such institution would pose a significant risk to Federal
funds and the integrity of programs under title IV.''.

SEC. 3. EVALUATION AND REPORT.

(a) Information From Institutions.--
(1) Institutions covered by requirement.--The requirements
of paragraph (2) apply to any institution of higher education
that--
(A) has notified the Secretary of Education of an election
to qualify for the exception to limitation based on course of
study in section 102(a)(7) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(a)(7)) or the exception to the 50
percent limitation in section 484(l)(1)(C) of such Act (20
U.S.C. 1091(l)(1)(C));
(B) has notified the Secretary under section 481(a)(3) of
such Act (20 U.S.C. 1088(a)(3)); or
(C) contracts with outside parties for--
(i) the delivery of distance education programs;
(ii) the delivery of programs offered in nontraditional
formats; or
(iii) the purpose of securing the enrollment of students.
(2) Requirements.--Any institution of higher education to
which this paragraph applies shall comply, on a timely basis,
with the Secretary of Education's reasonable requests for
information on changes in--
(A) the amount or method of instruction offered;
(B) the types of programs or courses offered;
(C) enrollment by type of program or course;
(D) the amount and types of grant, loan, or work assistance
provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
that is received by students enrolled in programs conducted
in nontraditional formats; and
(E) outcomes for students enrolled in such courses or
programs.
(b) Report by Secretary Required.--The Secretary of
Education shall conduct by grant or contract a study of, and
by March 31, 2003, submit to the Congress, a report on--
(1) the effect that the amendments made by this Act have
had on--
(A) the ability of institutions of higher education to
provide distance learning opportunities to students; and
(B) program integrity;
(2) with respect to distance education or correspondence
education courses at institutions of higher education to
which the information requirements of subsection (a)(2)
apply, changes from year-to-year in--
(A) the amount or method of instruction offered and the
types of programs or courses offered;
(B) the number and type of students enrolled in distance
education or correspondence education courses;
(C) the amount of student aid provided to such students, in
total and as a percentage of the institution's revenue; and
(D) outcomes for students enrolled in distance education or
correspondence education courses, including graduation rates,
job placement rates, and loan delinquencies and defaults;
(3) any reported and verified claim of inducement to
participate in the student financial aid programs and any
violation of the Higher Education Act of 1965, including any
actions taken by the Department of Education against the
violator; and
(4) any further improvements that should be made to the
provisions amended by this Act (and related provisions), in
order to accommodate nontraditional educational opportunities
in the Federal student assistance programs while ensuring the
integrity of those programs.

SEC. 4. LEARNING ANYTIME ANYWHERE PARTNERSHIPS.

SEC. 5. IMPLEMENTATION.

[[Page H6481]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 256, the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and a Member opposed each will
control 30 minutes.
Is the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) opposed to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon)
will be recognized for 30 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer this amendment, which responds
to the critical statements that have been made by my colleagues offered
in general objection to the enactment of H.R. 1992.
What I have done in my substitute amendment is to restore two of the
three protections that I spoke about earlier, the two having to do with
the 12-hour rule and having to do with the ban on paying incentive fees
and commissions to recruiters for signing up with a student financial
aid program. I believe that these two provisions currently in existence
are absolutely critical to protect the integrity of the student
financial aid program. Therefore, what my substitute amendment does is
to restore those to current language by knocking it out of H.R. 1992.
It is very simple. I hope that my colleagues are listening to the
debate and will come to the floor in support of the Mink substitute to
H.R. 1992.
The one provision which I have let stand has to do with the 50-50
rule. What it does there is to say, if the default rate rises above 10
percent that the institutions are no longer eligible for the waiver of
the 50-50. So there is recognition that the default rate is critical,
and they have imposed that limit in the elimination of the 50-50 rule.
I wanted, as I offered in committee, the bar, the cap at 10 percent for
all of the provisions, which was refused and defeated in committee. So
today I rise to restore those two provisions which are being knocked
out by H.R. 1992.
Let me say that this debate is not limited to distance learning. What
H.R. 1992 does is eliminate this ban for all higher education; not just
for those that are logging in on a program, but everything. We cannot
establish this elimination of the 12-hour rule and the ban on
incentives for fees and commissions to recruiters unless we affect the
entire student financial aid program; and that is what H.R. 1992 does,
which I find unnecessary, unreasonable, and not substantiated. So I
restore those two provisions.
The 12-hour rule is especially critical because it then establishes
the sense of protecting the quality of higher education that a student
is to receive. I support the idea that we ought to encourage distance
learning. There must be a way in which we could establish the program
and the mechanism to count in the number of times that a student logs
in to the Web or logs into the Internet for higher education. Certainly
that can be done very easily. And, the 12-hour rule can be then
certified that the students had interaction with their instructors,
that there was a classroom environment in which there was Q and A over
subject matter, that there was log-in time for participation between
student and professor.
To banish the idea of an instructor kind of environment for higher
education, I think, is very destructive to the quality of that
education. It is for that reason that the National Educational
Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American
Association of University Professors have roundly denounced the passage
of H.R. 1992, because they are interested in quality education, they
want to make sure that the students are getting something for the money
that they are investing. We are concerned because the money that is
being invested in Web-based education on the Internet or laptops or
whatever eventually may become a cost factor to the taxpayers of this
country under a guaranteed student loan.
So the restrictions that are put in place are not to restrict
education; that is the business of the universities and the
institutions that are offering it. But, when they want to pay for that
education through a student financial aid program that is guaranteed by
the Federal Government, then I believe we are entitled to set the
ground rules to make sure that quality education is being disseminated
and that the student has a chance to repay back that loan without
diminishing the Treasury of the United States.
So it is for those two basic reasons that I stand to offer my
substitute which deletes these two programs. It is essential that we
not interpret this bill as only affecting distance learning. The two
provisions that are being repealed from current law affect all of
higher education. There will be no more 12-hour rule for every
institution of higher learning offering learning to students, either on
campus, on a laptop, in whatever setting; and I think that that is a
dangerous precedent to set and certainly invites great jeopardy to the
student financial aid program.
The 50-50 rule as a limit of any institution going over the 10
percent default cannot take advantage of that repeal. Surely we should
have been wise enough to put that kind of limit on the elimination of
the 12-hour rule. The incentive ban was the one thing that the inquiry
pointed out when they investigated high default rates as singularly
contributing to the defaults by students, because they were being
gathered to sign up for student aid here, there, or wherever, without
reasonable expectation that they would complete their education or that
the education being offered was valuable. So what happened? There was
an increase in the default rate, it went up over 20 percent nationwide,
and we had to come in and take steps necessary to protect the Treasury
of the United States. So the incentive ban is absolutely critical. The
inspector general of the Department of Education says it is critical,
and she spoke against its repeal. So my substitute restores the ban.
Certainly the institutions can find ways in which to enhance the
advertising and communication of what they are offering. They should
not have to pay commissions and fees to people that are counting the
number of log-ins to their advertisements on the Web and luring in
students in that way and collecting money from the institution out of
our Federal student financial aid programs. I think that that is
absolutely the wrong way to go, and I hope that my substitute will be
supported for those two reasons.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition; and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I agree with much of what the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink), my good friend, has said. There were some real problems in
the past. I think we all agree on that. In fact, I have a little chart
here that says, although I do not know if my colleagues can see it over
there, but it shows the amount of loans that were made annually in 1990
up through 1999. They went from about $12 billion a year in 1990 up
until last year, or 1999, $30 billion. So there was a big increase. A
lot more people are taking advantage; a lot more people are needing to
participate in the student process.
There were comments made earlier about default rate and how many
people were not repaying their loans; and a lot of corrections, a lot
of changes were made. This red line shows that the default rate in 1990
was 22.4 percent. We can see how it has dropped each year, this last
year, down to 5.6 percent. There have been tremendous improvements made
and none of us want to lose sight of that, and none of us want to go
back to where we had those kinds of problems again, and that is why we
have taken some very good care in preparing this legislation.
At the same time, we do not want to pass up people's opportunities to
take advantage of the distance learning that is available. I remember
probably over 20 years ago when I served on a local school board, I
went to a national conference on education, and the thing that they
were saying at that time is that the most futuristic thing, the thing
that was really going to happen was distance learning. Well, now it is
here; and it is happening. We have to take advantage of it.
Let me read a letter from David Sheridan who is Dean of Enrollment

[[Page H6482]]

Services, Chairman of the Federal Relations Committee from the Eastern
Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators at Stevens
Institute of Technology. I think he has some very cogent remarks on
this.
``Dear Chairman McKeon, I am writing in enthusiastic support of H.R.
1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. The `50 percent
rule' changes are necessary to take down barriers that would become
more of a problem in the future. A few years ago, none of us could
envision the way technology would shape education by now, and we lack
the same foresight to forecast what will be commonplace by the time
today's freshmen graduate,'' 4 years from now. ``The volume of courses
delivered via the Web, not to mention the academic acceptance and
legitimacy thereof, is only going to grow, and not modifying the law
now will lead to roadblocks later. The 12-hour rule is similar in that
removing it clears the way for commonsense options for the changing
face of higher education today. If the Department of Education's job is
to put America through school, Congress needs to change the law so that
schools and the students can decide what type of instruction and
schedule works best for them. The compensation incentive aspect of the
Higher Education Act requires further clarification, so the schools and
their employees are not punished beyond what I believe were the
intentions of Congress when they wrote this segment of the law.
``As always, I thank you, the committee,'' all of us, ``and your
staff members for your tireless efforts on behalf of college students
everywhere in America. It is my sincere hope that H.R. 1992 will be
passed by the current Congress.''
Madam Speaker, I will insert the above-referenced letter and chart
into the Record at this time.

Stevens Institute of Technology,

Hoboken, NJ, August 29, 2001.
Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness,
Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing in enthusiastic support
of H.R. 1992, The Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001.
The ``50 percent rule'' changes are necessary to take down
barriers that would become more of a problem in the future. A
few years ago, none of us could envision the way technology
would shape education by now, and we lack the same foresight
to forecast what will be commonplace by the time today's
freshmen graduate. The volume of courses delivered via the
Web (not to mention the academic acceptance and legitimacy
thereof) is only going to grow, and not modifying the law now
will lead to roadblocks later. The 12-hour rule is similar in
that removing it clears the way for common sense options for
the changing face of higher education today. If the
Department of Education's job is to Put America Through
School, Congress needs to change the law so that schools and
the students can decide what type of instruction and schedule
works best for them. The compensation incentive aspect of the
Higher Education Act requires further clarification so that
schools and their employees are not punished beyond what I
believe were the intentions of Congress when they wrote this
segment of the law.
As always, I thank you, the Committee and your staff
members for your tireless efforts on behalf of college
students everywhere in America. It is my sincere hope that
H.R. 1992 will be passed by the current Congress.
Sincerely,
David Sheridan,
Dean of Enrollment Services, Chair, Federal Relations
Committee, Eastern Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1245

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I strongly support restoring the current
language, and I think it is important, but I am in opposition to H.R.
1992.
Madam Speaker, all of us strongly support distance learning, but I am
very much concerned about the monies it will take away from our
colleges, our universities, and our students who attend them.
I think, as the individual just talked about right now, many
individuals are taking advantage of the loans and the opportunities.
Why are they taking advantage of them? They have an opportunity to take
12 hours or more, and the equivalencies are there, so students are
going to do that.
As we see the increase of our student population, we do not see the
increase in funding of the pie. It is important that the funding in
that pie be the equivalency. We have not increased it.
We have seen the crises that are here today that are affecting us
right now. Education is a high priority for all of us. But are we
putting the additional dollars to assure that every student has access
to it? No, we are not. I want to make sure that our colleges, our
universities, and the individuals who are attending them have an
opportunity to receive the funding that is there.
I am also concerned about the digital divide between those who have
computers and those who do not. Many individuals do not have access to
our computers. I believe that every student should have the ability to
be able to have computers and access. When they do, then we are at the
same level playing field to assure that everybody has access to high
technology.
Until everyone has access, I say, how can we have certain students,
individuals who are taking 12 units or less, receive the assistance
while the other students are not going to? What effect does it have on
the institution? Now when we talk about AFDA, there will be monies that
will not go to our institutions that were taken away because instead of
having students go there 12 hours or more, they will be taking a few
classes to receive the kind of assistance they need, and our
institutions then will be penalized.
That is why I am supporting an appropriations request for KVCR
district from my area in instructional television. But I am saying,
increase the funding. Without the funding it becomes very difficult.
All of us are not against distance learning. We believe distance
learning is important to all of us. We want to make sure that everyone
has the same opportunities.
Our colleges and universities have always been the gateway of
opportunity. We should not take funding away from them and hurt lower-
income students. That is who it is going to affect, lower-income
students at these institutions of learning, and the loan programs that
will affect them have always been there. We have to make sure they are
there now and in the future as we see the growth in our State colleges
and universities.
That is why I stand against H.R. 1992, because I want to make sure
that every student has the ability to go. I know that I had that
opportunity when I went to a community college and a State college and
a university, that the loans were there. I am afraid that those monies
will not be available for individuals as we see the increase.
I would have loved to have seen this if we would have had the
additional funding tied into that. I would have been one of the
strongest supporters, because I believe in distance learning. But the
funding is not appropriated toward this bill, and we are going to hurt
our State colleges and universities. We want to make sure that
everybody has access to our State colleges and universities, and has an
opportunity to receive those loans. Many individuals of low income will
be hurt because the monies will not be there for them to assure that
they have an opportunity to fulfill their dreams and their goals in
obtaining their education.
Until we do, I urge a no vote.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to my
good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
Madam Speaker, the student loan is a mandatory program, and the money
will be there.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend,
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Madam Speaker, I would like to put into a simple context both this
12-hour rule and the incentive compensation, which are the main focus
points of the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs.
Mink).
First of all, on the incentive compensation, the bill, which I have
before me, and the provisions of incentive

[[Page H6483]]

compensation still prohibit, as it did before, paying commissions or
inducements tied to a student loan being procured. That is still not
allowed, but three exceptions are created. I would like to point out
what those exceptions are.
Exception number one is that the prohibition cannot be construed to
apply to an institution contracting with a third-party vendor to
disseminate information upon which they receive payment, as long as
that payment is not tied to the application or the approval of any
student loan.
When a layman reads that language, it sounds kind of funny, but it is
there specifically because under the current rules application, a
university cannot contract with a third-party website provider to
disseminate information on available curriculum for distance learning
and pay them without being in violation of incentive compensation,
because website managers are compensated basically on hits, which is
construed by the current interpretation to be a commission. That is a
very technical and narrow change which in no way brings about any type
of fraud.
Secondly and most importantly, it ensures that the unintended
consequence of denying an employee in the student aid office of a
university from getting a normal salary raise, that that does not
happen.
As many members of the committee are aware, the Department of
Education, as it should have, in its aggressive attack against
institutions that appeared to be violating the spirit of the laws
passed by the gentlewoman in 1992 and by others, aggressively construed
the application of incentive compensation in a case to where it
actually applied to the raise of an employee in the office who had no
responsibility for approval or application or anything else. That was
an unintended consequence.
Certainly if one is approving and recruiting and wanting distance
learning to be part of our process, as everyone has said, the last
thing we want to do is penalize universities from being able to use
websites to disseminate information on their courses.
Now, with regard to the 12-hour rule, I used to get real confused by
the term ``seat time.'' The distinguished gentleman from New Jersey,
being a distinguished professor, knows all about that.
When I took over the Georgia Board of Education, I started dealing
with all these 50 minutes for that and 40 minutes for that, and block
schedulings, 90 minutes for this, alternate block schedulings for that,
and 12-hour rules. I got confused.
Then I all of a sudden realized that those rules were all passed in a
time where all of us thought it was important that the student be in
the class and there participating in the activity as some barometer of
a responsible educational environment.
However, today in the digital world to apply that absolutely inhibits
many students, nontraditional, who would never have access to education
otherwise, from getting it, because it disallows distance learning.
Seat time was just the only way of measurement in the old days.
I used to suggest that we ought to have professor seat time. Most
university professors use graduate assistants, and I would like to see
us have some rules for how many hours the real professor is in the real
class. But we do not, because we trust the institution for the quality
of their education. So why should we not trust those same institutions
for the delivery of distance learning?
My last point on this, Madam Speaker, the IG has been mentioned two
or three times. Some of the specific references, directly or
indirectly, were to one particular investigation which ended up
vindicating an institution that was alleged to have violated the 12-
hour rule. To satisfy the investigation, they produced reams of
paperwork that said a student was in a classroom environment, and it
was basically attendance rolls.
We must understand the IG's job is now much easier under distance
learning than it ever was under correspondence or alternative type of
courses, because distance learning allows those inspectors the access
to the same course the students take, so the quality of instruction and
the amount of use that student engaged in that instruction gets is
monitored by the very Internet upon which it is delivered.
So while I respect the gentlewoman's concern, I want to point out to
all Members that we are not opening the door for fraud in commissions,
we are just making sure that the unintended consequences of past
actions are corrected so the Internet itself can be used.
In terms of the 12-hour rule, we are saying we are not going to
confuse time with accomplishment. Instead, we are going to monitor
education best on what a student achieves, not just how much time they
might have sat in a seat.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for
yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentleman from California
(Mr. McKeon) and others have talked about distinguished schools like
Stanford, Georgia Tech, that offer Internet-only courses. I think that
is wonderful.
When we talk about the 12-hour rule, we are not talking against
Internet-only education. We want nontraditional possibilities.
I am a fan of this. I grew up around this. My father did what was the
equivalent in his day. He got his law degree by correspondence school.
In fact, I understand the correspondence school spoke with great
admiration of the quality of his work in this correspondence school.
Today, it would be by the Internet. The Web-based Commission we have
spoken about today as the reason for this bill before us says, ``The
question is no longer if the Internet can be used to transform learning
in new and powerful ways. The commission has found that it can.''
None of us doubt that. We are not speaking against the virtual
university, but we want to make sure that we do not return to the
``anything goes'' kind of regulations.
The great educator, Agassiz, said in the 19th century that a pencil
is the best chart. Well, if he were speaking today, it might very well
be the computer or the Internet.
But let us not use the name of high technology to discard standards
and common sense. I once again ask Members to apply the ``reasonable
person'' rule to determine what is common sense: Would a person in our
districts say that logging on sometime during the week makes one a
full-time student?
Would we be comfortable leaving the door open for any fly-by-night
school operator, and believe me, we have seen them, fruit stands that
are offering auto repair courses, a school that offered language
courses only in one language to students who spoke only another
language, or a Texas truck-driving school that lost its eligibility and
formed a new partnership with a Kansas liberal arts college. We have
seen fly-by-night operators.
Would the reasonable person feel comfortable with potential fly-by-
night operators out there being able to offer courses like this and
say, we have this many hundred full-time students who are collecting
Federal student money and passing it on to this school? It would
appear, I think, to open the door for them to take advantage to grab
Federal dollars.
And I would argue that even reputable schools would benefit from a
definition of a full-time student that brings respect of Americans to
this use of Federal funds for student aid, so there is general
agreement among educators that 12 hours of seat time is not the only or
not even the best measure or criteria for full-time study. I understand
that this rule needs to be revised to address the rise in distance
education.
The Web-based Commission said it should be revised, but did not
recommend any specific change, such as changing the 12-hour rule to a
very vague one-day rule. The commission merely encouraged ``. . . the
Federal Government to review and, if necessary, revise'' these
provisions.
Abruptly changing the 12-hour rule to a one-day rule opens the door
for fraud and abuse and a real loss of standards in appropriate use of
Federal funds for higher education.

[[Page H6484]]

{time} 1300

I appreciate the efforts to protect against fraud by requiring
notification if a school dips below the 12-hour rule, but this
notification will not protect the quality of these programs. That is
why I so strongly support the substitute amendment of my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) for yielding the time.
Just to make a couple of points, the Mink substitute would eliminate
the needed reforms that we have been talking about for the 12-hour
rule. It would eliminate the needed reforms on the incentive
compensation provisions. It would gut this important legislation and
continue to hinder the ability of institutions of higher education to
offer information and instruction to all Americans through the Internet
and nontraditional courses.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us in
defeating the Mink substitute and vote to provide relief to colleges
and universities who are working to offer educational opportunities to
all students.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I again thank the ranking member of our
subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), for yielding me
the time.
I just wanted to briefly address this 12-hour rule situation. I think
it is interesting to note, I do not think anybody disagrees that that
rule needs to be looked at; that it needs to be revised; that 12 hours
is not necessarily the measure of the value of quality of an education.
However, I am a bit disturbed, as I think we all should be, that the
suggested replacement for that is a sort of vague or incomplete
standard of 1 day which, in essence, could be read and could, in fact,
be the simple logging on in some part of some day on to a computer
Internet program and then qualifying as a full-time student for
purposes of financial aid. It fails to address the standard, fails to
address what is the quality of a program for which that student would
be receiving financial aid and ostensibly working toward a degree.
One of the real criteria here we ought to be looking at is whether or
not we are going to be adequate stewards for the way we distribute a
very limited amount of money; and while financial aid, as the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) said, will be available, there is only so
much available. As more and more people may sign up for these courses,
that money is going to be spread across a larger universe.
That is fine if the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) wanted an
original 5-year demonstration program and is now satisfied with one and
satisfied with the preliminary results, when I suggest that many of us
may not be satisfied with the preliminary results. We want answers to
questions like what specifically makes this rule of 1 day, which could
be construed as logging in for part of 1 day, an adequate standard.
There was no testimony at the committee hearings that we were at that
addressed just what would be the proper replacement for the 12-hour
rule. I agree we heard people say that it ought to be changed and that
we needed a new standard so that distance learning could be encouraged;
but I did not hear any testimony, have not seen any reports that have
addressed what, in fact, is the adequate amount. Accreditation agencies
have not caught up with this concept.
As I mentioned earlier, while some schools may have set good,
rigorous standards for a good-quality education, many have not; and
many accrediting institutions have not caught up with where this
concept ought to be and how it ought to be measured that, in fact,
there is a right amount of time of contact with a faculty member or
contact with their peers in the classroom.
It would not really address, as we heard evidence on, and got a good
and convincing idea of whether or not there should be no visual
experience, whether there should be no contact with classmates. Are we
saying in essence that we are stepping ahead of those accrediting
agencies and deciding that there is no value to interchange and
exchange in a classroom with other people in their life experiences and
no value to having an exchange with a faculty member and all of their
valuable experiences and what they bring to the table?
I think that we can wait for those demonstration programs to be
completed as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act. I think we can
look at the data and the information that comes forward and that we can
then replace this 12-hour rule with a clearer concept of what should be
in place.
Must we have face time in order for it to be a good-quality education
program? If not, why not? If, in fact, we should have some, how much
would be the adequate amount?
I think again that we need not be precipitous here; that we have
distance learning programs going on in institutions all over this
country, whether they be State schools or whether they be private
institutions; and nobody wants to interfere with that, and everybody
that I know in this Congress supports that concept.
I would hope that everybody in this Congress also supports the
establishment of sound standards to make sure that if we give the right
to people to use this financial aid, which is limited in the truest
sense, that we do it only toward programs where there are standards set
that are sufficient so that those students will know that they have
been ensured a quality education; and so that Americans, whose
taxpayers' money go for those financial aid obligations, know that they
are going for people who are going to get a quality educational
experience that they can use to enhance their ability to support
themselves and their families and their communities.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, can the Chair notify each side how much
time we have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) has 19 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs.
Mink) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) has the right to close.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of our committee.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), the chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time.
I stand in opposition to the amendment. I think that the Mink
substitute would eliminate needed reforms to the 12-hour rule and
incentive compensation prohibitions within the Higher Education Act.
The substitute would really gut this important legislation.
H.R. 1992 eliminates the burdensome requirement that programs offered
on the nontraditional basis must account for at least 12 hours per week
of seat time for each student. Instead, the bill requires that programs
offered on a nontraditional basis be held to the same accountability
standards as those offered on a traditional semester-quarter basis.
It further requires schools offering such programs to notify the
Secretary to ensure that they are adequately monitored. This is very
important, that of requiring institutions that offer such programs to
maintain attendance records for every student is overly burdensome and
may prevent schools from offering programs to serve working adults or
others that cannot attend the traditional campuses on a traditional
basis.
At one institution, the 12-hour rule requires an additional 370,000
attendance records per year to be kept just to prove compliance.
It is doubtful that these records would ever even be reviewed. But
even with the elimination of the 12-hour rule, institutions offering
nontraditional programs will still be held to high standards. They must
provide at least 30 weeks of instruction to qualify under the Higher
Education Act. Course quality and quantity of instruction are also
ensured by accreditors that must be recognized by the Secretary of
Education. The law requires these accreditors to review all eligible
programs for quality and to ensure

[[Page H6485]]

that the amount of instruction is adequate to fulfill the goals of this
program.
So I think we have taken certain steps to address the concerns that
have been raised on the other side of the aisle. Specifically, we have
defined third-party service relationships and specified that they are
subject to incentive compensation provisions unless they have no
control over eligibility for admission or enrollment or the awarding of
financial aid and provided they do not pay any employee solely on the
basis of student recruitment. This allows common business practices
while preventing schools from hiring bounty hunters.
We have also clarified that a salary payment can only be considered
such if it is made on a regular basis and it is not adjusted more than
once every 6 months. This will prevent institutions from disguising
incentive compensation payments as salary.
Madam Speaker, I think these provisions really provide the quality of
education to nontraditional students, and I urge defeat of this
amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the author of the bill before us.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Speaker, as we close the debate I want to first of
all acknowledge my thanks for the work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the
subcommittee chairman, the tremendous work by the members of the staffs
in this legislation and acknowledge the hard work before the Web-based
Education Commission.
In addition, I want to pay particular thanks to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, and to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Their thoughtful consideration
of the work that went into the effort behind this bill and the
parameters narrowly drawn that we have placed into this legislation
allow us to move forward in a digital world and deliver education to
those who in the past might not ever have gotten it, while still
assuring the taxpayer and those in the educational world that we will
not accept fraud. We will not accept abuse. We will merely accept an
expansion of opportunity for children and young adults all over
America.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Members for the spirited debate. I thank
the chairman for the time he has allowed me. I urge my colleagues to
reject the substitute and vote for final passage of H.R. 1992.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I would like to read from portions of the letter that
all of us received from the American Association of University
Professors urging that we not enact H.R. 1992.
In the second page of their letter it says the AAUP recommends, one,
accrediting agencies need to do a better, more specific job defining
the elements of higher education. What do we mean by a college degree?
How much learning goes into that? How universal are educators'
expectations for level and breadth of course work across institutional
and regional boundaries? Transfers among institutions and transfers
among modes of education make these questions inescapable.
Two, faculty need to define measures of course work. What is a
course? How much learning is going on when an student is engaged in
full-time education? What is half of that? What is a quarter of that?
Since faculty have not articulated this definition so far, others are
filling in with their attempts. The Department has a 12-hour rule.
Congress is now considering doing away with all measures except those
offered by the lowest common denominator of education providers.
Three, the institution of higher education policies engaged in a
major study of student credit hours, its uses and effects. By the time
the Higher Education Act is due to be reauthorized, this study should
yield some thoughtful results. Instead of creating chaos now by lifting
all limitations, it seems reasonable to allow study to proceed and to
build legislation on its conclusions.
This letter is signed by Mary Burgan, the general secretary of the
AAUP. And I think it really tells it all for those of us who have
joined together in support of my substitute and who oppose enactment of
H.R. 1992.
We certainly believe that the time is here for distance education.
Students ought to have ample opportunity to gain higher education
credits and courses by signing up on distance learning mechanisms. But
at the same time I do not believe that the way to do it is to lift the
protections which were enacted into law in 1992 during the higher
education reauthorization at that time. We put those protections in
because there were skyrocketing escalations of student defaults. And it
was determined that some way standards were to be implemented in order
to assure stability of the program and adequate quality higher
education to the students that were signing up.
The first rule we had was the 50/50, that universities that were
accredited could have 50 percent traditional education on campus,
instruction on campus, and 50 percent off campus. That rule I believe
is fair and should be retained. The bill that we are considering waives
this requirement. But at least it has a limitation which says if an
institution exceeds a 10 percent default rate, they have cannot use the
waiver and they must go back and adhere to the 50/50.
In the case of the 12-hour rule, it is a complete elimination because
there is no point in saying a 1-day login constitutes a full-time
student. Nobody will accept those definitions. So we think the 12-hour
rule gives some substantial assurance that the student is going to get
quality education. This does not mean that everybody has to drive to a
campus. They can get their learning in the kitchen seated at a table
with their laptop, login. There can be requirements on the number of
times they log in during the week. There can be a faculty-students
interchange. There can be questions that are put on the program to
assure that there is a continuum of feedback from the student and from
the professor.
And certainly, the programs can be developed which will enable the
universities to carefully monitor that there is this so-called seat-
time; and 12 hours is the very barest minimum to require of a full-time
student to get the full student financial aid program.

{time} 1315

The prohibition against incentives, recruitment commissions, and
fees, to me, is the most egregious part of this bill, which I strike in
my amendment. I want to restore the ban. We should not allow anyone to
promote student financial aid and get a kickback fee from the
university from the number of loans that are initiated, whether or not
the student ever goes.
So it seems to me the ban is a solid protection. I believe it has
been primarily responsible for the lowering of student default rates,
because there has been careful monitoring of the incentive prohibition.
And the inspector general at the Department has been very, very
attentive to the requirements of that law. In fact, the inspector
general came to the committee and urged that the incentive ban not be
eliminated. So that is also part of my substitute.
We restore the 12-hour rule, restore the ban on incentive
commissions, and leave the 50-50 rule as presently incorporated in H.R.
1992. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and vote for the Mink
substitute. I believe it is consistent with our responsibility to
safeguard the student financial aid program, its financial integrity,
and to protect the quality of higher education at the same time.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon), the chairman of the subcommittee for his fine work in moving
this bill, this bipartisan bill, through the committee, and thank our
sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), not only
for his work in bringing the bill to the floor today but for his
service on the Web-based Education Commission, the recommendations from
which are the basis of the bill we have before us.
As I said, this is a bipartisan bill. We have worked on it through
the committee process. Members on both sides of the aisle supported it
coming through the committee, and today, I

[[Page H6486]]

believe, we will have broad bipartisan support in defeat of the
amendment that we have before us and in passage of this bill.
Now, we have heard an awful lot today about the 12-hour rule, the 50-
percent requirement, and the issue of incentive pay for those who are
involved in offering these programs. But for a moment, let us step back
and consider what it is we are trying to accomplish. We all in this
Chamber know the need today for every American to receive some type of
postsecondary education. To take a high school diploma into the current
job market today is not a ticket for success. Frankly, it is a ticket
to go almost nowhere. If every American really wants a shot at the
American dream that we have all hoped for, and we hope all our kids and
all our constituents will shoot for, some type of postsecondary
education and training is absolutely required. Whether it is an
apprentice program, whether it is a training program somewhere, a
university, or maybe a distance-learning opportunity, we ought to do
all we can to encourage students to get postsecondary training or
education, and we ought to do everything we can to assist them in
getting that type of training or education.
One of the two biggest barriers to getting training or education are
simply the cost and the time to do it. Both of those issues are
addressed here. We all know of the tremendous cost of a university
education. Most of us, and most of our constituents, worked our way
through college trying to find a way to afford the cost of a college
education. We know today that all types of training programs out there
are very expensive. We also know that distance-learning opportunities,
in fact, bring down the cost of this education and/or training. So if
there is a more reasonable way to provide this education or training,
why would we not want to look at it?
The second biggest issue is time. We all know how busy we are. We all
know the need for a continuing education, and we all know the demands
on our schedule, from our professions to our families to our needs in
our own communities. Again, distance-learning opportunities will, in
fact, make it easier for people to get their education or their
training or, in fact, to continue the opportunity for lifelong
learning.
The bill that we have before us today meets all of the things that we
are trying to do to help our constituents get the kind of training and
education that they want, deserve, and, more importantly, that they
need, because the bill before us will make it easier for distance-
learning programs to go out and recruit students. The bill will make it
easier for them to do this training or education at home or from some
separate site via the Internet. And, frankly, the programs they will
get and the training they will get will be of much better quality than
what we have seen in correspondence classes or programs from in the
past, because many universities today are engaging themselves in very
serious outreach efforts to make sure that quality programs are out
there.
Now, as the gentlewoman from Hawaii mentions, there are risks
associated with this. There are. There is no question about it. These
programs have been abused in the past. These issues were addressed in
1992 and again in 1996. But I think what has happened is we went too
far. Secondly, the technology has far out-paced our ability to
legislate. What we have done in this bill is try to balance those
risks, to make sure that we are opening these programs up for our
students without taking undo risk. I think there is a bipartisan
consensus on both sides of the aisle that we have struck the right
balance in this bill.
I think there was one more safeguard that we ought to note, and that
other safeguard is this: in 2 years, we will be reauthorizing the
Higher Education Act. When we get there in 2 years, we will have an
opportunity to step back and look at what happened during this 2-year
period. If, in fact, things are on the right track or slightly off the
right track, we will have an opportunity to adjust it at that time.
So for all of those reasons I think that the bill we have before us
is a good bill. I appreciate the work of the gentlewoman from Hawaii,
but I ask my colleagues to reject the substitute that we have before us
and to support the bipartisan bill that we have on the floor in final
passage.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 256, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended, and on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 99,
nays 327, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 374]

YEAS--99

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baca
Baldwin
Barrett
Berkley
Blagojevich
Borski
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jefferson
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
LaFalce
Levin
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Payne
Phelps
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Stark
Thurman
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson (CA)
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey

NAYS--327

Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George

[[Page H6487]]

Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Cubin
Hastings (WA)
Issa
Miller (FL)

{time} 1351

Mr. HOLDEN, Ms. SOLIS, Ms. LEE, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. HILLIARD, Mr.
THOMPSON of Mississippi, Ms. McKINNEY, Messrs. RADANOVICH, ORTIZ, NEY,
RANGEL, SHOWS, MOLLOHAN, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Messrs. JACKSON of
Illinois, SPRATT, WYNN, BONIOR, SMITH of Michigan, BROWN of Ohio,
NADLER, CLAY and Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Messrs. DeFAZIO, HONDA, ETHERIDGE, PRICE of North Carolina and
McINTYRE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 354,
noes 70, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 375]

AYES--354

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--70

Baca
Baldwin
Barrett
Bishop
Blagojevich
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capuano
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
Edwards
Engel
Evans
Filner
Frank
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Holt
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kleczka
Lee
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Moore
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Payne
Phelps
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--6

Cubin
Davis, Tom
Hastings (WA)
Issa
Manzullo
Miller (FL)

{time} 1410

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________