TITLE: B-307917, Department of Education--No Child Left Behind Newspaper Article Entitled Parents Want Science Classes That Make the Grade, July 6, 2006
BNUMBER: B-307917
DATE: July 6, 2006
***************************************************************************************************************************************************
B-307917, Department of Education--No Child Left Behind Newspaper Article Entitled Parents Want Science Classes That Make the Grade, July 6, 2006

   B-307917

   July 6, 2006

   The Honorable Kent Talbert

   General Counsel

   Department of Education

   Subject: Department of Education--No Child Left Behind Newspaper Article
   Entitled "Parents Want Science Classes That Make the Grade"

   Dear Mr. Talbert:

   Thank you for your letter dated May 25, 2006, transmitting the
   Department's Antideficiency Act report for No Child Left Behind Act
   promotional activities, including a prepackaged news story and the
   Armstrong Williams subcontract. We will include your report in our
   Antideficiency Act database.

   We understand that the Department disagrees with GAO's conclusions that
   the prepackaged news story and Armstrong Williams subcontract resulted in
   Antideficiency Act violations. We do not find persuasive the reason you
   offer in your report to justify these two actions and, in fact, already
   addressed them in our September 30, 2005, opinions. See B-305368, Sept.
   30, 2005; B-304228, Sept. 30, 2005. We stand by our conclusions in those
   two opinions.

   Also, we want to advise you of our concern with your Office's conclusion
   that the Department's use of appropriated funds for the newspaper article,
   entitled "Parents Want Science Classes that Make the Grade," was proper.
   We disagree with your view that section 6076 of Public Law 109-13 created
   new law not in effect at the time that the Department contracted for the
   newspaper article. See Pub. L. No. 109-13, sect. 6076, 110 Stat. 231, 301
   (May 11, 2005). Congress clearly rejected the view that section 6076
   imposed a new requirement. In a conference report adopted by both Houses,
   the conferees specifically stated that section 6076 "confirms the opinion
   of the Government Accountability Office dated February 17, 2005
   (B-304272)." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-72, at 158-59 (2005) (emphasis
   added). The opinion to which this language refers explains that the
   critical element in determining whether the promotional materials
   constitute covert propaganda is whether the intended audience is informed
   of the source of the materials. See B-304272, Feb. 17, 2005. We disagree
   with the Department's interpretation that section 6076 created a new
   restriction not already imposed by the publicity or propaganda
   prohibition. Indeed, it was because the Justice Department's Office of
   Legal Counsel[1] and the Office of Management and Budget[2] refused to
   recognize the requirement for source attribution that Congress enacted
   section 6076 to emphasize that the publicity or propaganda prohibition
   always restricted the use of appropriations to disseminate information
   without proper source attribution.

   Again, we thank you for your response. If you have any questions regarding
   this matter or wish to discuss the applicability of section 6076 further,
   please feel free to contact Thomas H. Armstrong, Assistant General Counsel
   for Appropriations Law, at (202) 512- 8257.

   Sincerely yours,

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

   cc: Senator Frank Lautenberg
   Senator Edward Kennedy
   The Honorable John P. Higgins, Jr.
   Inspector General, Department of Education

   ------------------------

   [1] Memorandum for the General Counsels of the Executive Branch, Whether
   Appropriations May be Used for Informational Video News Releases, OLC
   Opinion, Mar. 11, 2005.

   [2] OMB Memorandum No. M-05-10, Use of Government Funds for Video News
   Release (Mar. 11, 2005).