[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 9496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       INTRODUCTION OF INTERNET EQUITY AND EDUCATION ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 24, 2001

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today I join Representative Isakson in 
introducing the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001.
  The proposed amendments to the Higher Education Act are modest, but 
will provide an immediate benefit to students and improve the ability 
of postsecondary institutions to offer instruction over the Internet.
  I will focus my comments on the issue of incentive compensation. 
There has been widespread acknowledgment within the higher education 
community and at the Department of Education that this provision and 
the implementing regulation that mimics the statute are unclear and the 
cause of much confusion with respect to allowable activities. The 
language included in this legislation attempts to clarify the intent of 
Congress, while recognizing that this particular provision needs to be 
regulated in a clear and concise manner with input from all interested 
parties.
  For example, the reference to ``other incentive, non-salary payment'' 
in this bill clarifies that the statutory prohibition on certain 
monetary compensations extends only to bonuses, commissions, and 
similar payments. It does not prohibit setting or prospectively 
adjusting salary from time to time, based on performance of legitimate 
job functions.
  The reference to payments ``based directly on success'' in securing 
enrollments clarifies that institutions may compensate admissions 
personnel based on their performance of legitimate recruiting 
activities and are commonly undertaken by recruiters on behalf of 
institutions of higher education prior to enrollment and the start of 
classes. Such activities and practices include, but are not limited to, 
recruiting visits to high schools; telephone calls and similar 
communications (including written letters and e-mail) aimed at 
recruiting prospective students; personal interviews of prospective 
students; tours for prospective students; providing various academic 
and general, school-related information to prospective students; and 
obtaining certain information from prospective students, including but 
not limited to applications, transcripts, high school diplomas, and 
other documentation needed to complete an application to enroll at an 
institution of higher education.
  In addition, the change in language is intended to clarify that 
employee and owner participation in the profits of an institution is 
permitted.
  The reference to persons or entities ``directly engaged'' in 
recruiting or awarding financial aid clarifies that the statutory 
prohibition applies only to those whose primary function is to recruit 
students or award financial aid. It is not intended to apply to 
supervisors or higher-level executives who, although they may supervise 
such persons or be above them in the institution's organizational 
chart, do not recruit prospective students or award financial aid. In 
addition, this change clarifies that the statutory prohibition is not 
intended to apply to contractual arrangements with third parties, such 
as web services providers marketing companies, or other service 
providers that have no control or authority over admissions or 
enrollments at the contracting institution.
  Finally, this provision is being deleted from Section 487 and placed 
in a new Section 484C. It was never the intent of Congress that this 
provision should be deemed an element or condition of institutional, 
programmatic, or student eligibility. In changing the placement of the 
provision, it will give the Secretary the discretion to levy 
appropriate sanctions, in the event an institution is found to have 
violated the statutory ban.
  I believe this clarification of the incentive compensation provision, 
along with the provisions addressing the 12-hour rule and 
correspondence education limitations, will provide postsecondary 
institutions with much needed relief from ``outdated regulations that 
impede innovation,'' and will allow the institutions to provide 
students with approaches to education ``that embrace anytime, anywhere, 
any pace learning.'' It will do so within the context of maintaining 
the integrity of our student financial aid programs. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.

                          ____________________