[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19089-19114]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 19090]]

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 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

[[Page 19091]]

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, 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.''

[[Page 19092]]

       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 19093]]

  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.

[[Page 19094]]

       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).
  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.

[[Page 19095]]

       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.
       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. 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.

       (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 paragraph (3)(A) 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; 
     and
       ``(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.''.
       (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; 
     and
       ``(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.''.

     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

[[Page 19096]]

     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.

       (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. 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

[[Page 19097]]

     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.
  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

[[Page 19098]]

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 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

[[Page 19099]]

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 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. 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,

[[Page 19100]]

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. 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

[[Page 19101]]

     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 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.


copyright protection: horse and buggies on the information superhighway

       ``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. 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.

[[Page 19102]]


  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.
  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)

[[Page 19103]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 19104]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 19105]]

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 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. Madam 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.

[[Page 19106]]

  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. Madam 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. Madam 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 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.
  Madam 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. Madam 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.
  Madam 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, Madam 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

[[Page 19107]]

       ``(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.

       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. 5. 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 section 2 of this Act.

  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

[[Page 19108]]

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 
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. 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

[[Page 19109]]

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 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

[[Page 19110]]

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.

                              {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.

[[Page 19111]]

  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 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

[[Page 19112]]

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 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

[[Page 19113]]

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
     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.

[[Page 19114]]

  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.

                          ____________________