[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9494-9495]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       INTRODUCTION OF INTERNET EQUITY AND EDUCATION ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 24, 2001

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Internet Equity 
and Education Act of 2001.
  The Web-Based Education Commission, on which I served as Vice 
Chairman, set out to discovery how the Internet was being used to 
enhance learning opportunities for all learners regardless of age. We 
heard testimony from many experts and witnessed many demonstrations of 
how successfully to use technology in education. Last fall, the Web-
Based Education Commission issued its report, ``The Power of the 
Internet for Learning.''
  Throughout the report, the Commission makes several recommendations 
for improving and expanding the use of the Internet so that all 
learners may have greater access to educational opportunities. One 
specific recommendation made by the Commission was to ``[r]evise 
outdated regulations that impede innovation and replace them with 
approaches that embrace anytime, anywhere, any pace learning.'' The 
bill I am introducing today addresses this recommendation as it applies 
to postsecondary education.
  The Commission identified specific areas that should be addressed 
immediately if we truly are to embrace anytime, anywhere and any pace 
learning. The bill I am introducing today provides a limited expansion 
of internet-based educational opportunities for students. By the next 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act we will know if our efforts 
at expansion were successful and if greater expansions are warranted.
  The first provision addressed in this legislation deals with on-line 
education programs. As a result of past concerns regarding 
correspondence education, the Higher Education Act limits the number of 
courses an institution may offer and the number of students an 
institution may enroll in such courses and remain eligible to 
participate in the title IV student aid programs. In addition, the 
Higher Education Act limits the amount of aid a student enrolled in 
distance education courses delivered via telecommunications may receive 
if the institution offers half or more of its courses by correspondence 
or telecommunications. These provisions hinder innovation and do 
nothing to promote the concept of anytime, anywhere, any pace learning. 
However, with modest changes to the law, we can lift these rules and 
allow greater innovation and flexibility that will undoubtedly expand 
educational opportunities for all learners, without increasing risks to 
program integrity. Under the bill I am introducing, postsecondary 
institutions that are already participating in the federal student loan 
programs with student loan default rates under 10 percent over the 
three most recent years would face no limit to the number of courses 
they can offer over the Internet, or the number of students they can 
teach through telecommunications.
  The second provision addressed in this legislation is the repeal of a 
regulation known as the 12-hour rule with respect to non-standard term 
programs. This rule governs the amount of ``seat-time'' students must 
spend in class per week, and hinders innovation and flexibility in the 
offering of academic programs as a result of the enormous and expensive 
administrative burdens it imposes on colleges and universities. In the 
case of one university offering a nontraditional, non-standard term 
program, this rule translates into 370,000 reports each year that must 
be prepared, approved by faculty and stored in a way that they are 
available for inspection. These reports fill 20 four-drawer file 
cabinets every year. Who is going to review and read these mind-numbing 
reports? My guess is that no one is going to actually review or read 
these mind-numbing reports? My guess is that no one is going to 
actually review or read these reports, but the government continues to 
require that the reports be written and retained. Under these 
circumstances, why would any college try to offer innovative and 
flexible academic programs specifically designed to expand educational 
opportunities? This regulation clearly

[[Page 9495]]

fits the Commission's call for revising outdated regulations that 
impede innovation. It need to be repealed. The bill I am introducing 
today repeals this outdated regulation and simply treats non-standard 
term programs the same as standard term programs with respect to the 
definition of a week of instruction.
  The final provision addressed by the legislation would clarify the 
incentive compensation requirements currently found in the law. This 
provision would return to postsecondary institutions the ability to 
reward employees appropriately for their job performance, as long as 
they are not directly recruiting students.
  This legislation provides much needed changes to the Higher Education 
Act that will allow all learners to take the fullest advantage of what 
the newest technologies can provide for their education. I thank the 
Chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. McKeon, and Ranking Minority Member 
of the subcommittee, Ms. Mink, for their help in crafting this 
legislation, and I urge the support of all the members of this body.

                          ____________________