Home AdvocacyPolicyWashington Notes1999 Jul-Aug

Contents

• House Passes Teacher Training and Block Grant Legislation
• Congress Readies Deep Cuts for Education
• House Subcommittee Holds Hearings on Distance Learning
• New Millennium Classrooms Act on Fast Track in Congress
• Congress Moves Toward Internet Filtering
• E-Rate Funding Commitment Letter Waves Hit
• E-Rate Hearing: Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing
• Rep. Istook Reintroduces Measure to Require Filtering
• Comments Filed with the NTIA

House Passes Teacher Training and Block Grant Legislation

On July 20, the House passed the first piece of legislation (H.R. 1995) that will result in the full reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The Education community urged rejection of the bill because it would combine funds for Clinton’s plan to hire 100,000 new teachers with money for several professional development programs into a single block grant bound for the states. As Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) said: “the bill guts the class size program.”

This bill, as amended, was passed 239 to 185, with 24 Democrats supporting the measure and 4 Republicans opposing. Democrats were able to maintain enough party unity to easily meet the 145-vote threshold needed to sustain the promised veto.

Though both Republicans and Democrats laud the goal of better trained teachers and smaller classes, they disagree over the proposed scope of the legislation and the ability of states and schools to use the money appropriately. Democrats argued that the bill fails to meet the need for support personnel in schools, such as positions for counselors, social workers, and help for the disabled. Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) also warned that the use of state block grants could allow local decision makers to increase bureaucracy and divert funds from the schools and students who need them most. On the other hand, Committee Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA) cautioned that President Clinton’s much-publicized $1.2 billion plan to hire 30,000 new teachers requires “no accountability.” Clinton’s program, which began July 1, provides direct federal funds to local schools. Goodling argued that a system of state block grants would increase accountability and improve efficiency.

Interestingly, the language of H.R. 1995 seems to offer few solutions for increasing federal or local accountability—and fails to address at all how the $2 billion program can be financed under current budget caps. Chairman Goodling’s response to this difficult issue was simply, “They’ll find the money somehow.”

Because the ESEA legislation has been divided by title and subject matter for consideration at the subcommittee level, work on moving this legislation is still in its preliminary phase. The Committee plans to hold hearings on the other portions of the bill during the course of the summer.

Congress Readies Deep Cuts for Education

Federal funding for education programs may face staggering cuts in fiscal year 2000 if Congress has its way.

Though professing support for increased investment in education programs, members of Congress have rejected every proposal for increasing the federal education budget and instead have approved a FY 2000 budget resolution that would reduce the education budget by at least $200 million from its current levels. Even more alarming is the fact that congressionally imposed budget caps could actually reduce appropriations for education programs by almost $4 billion. If approved, this would result in the largest cuts ever for education.

In this year’s budget process, Congress has failed to meet any of the Administration’s modest funding requests. On February 1, President Clinton introduced his FY 2000 budget, which would have increased education spending by $1.2 billion—a 3.7% increase. The House and the Senate, however, passed resolutions to reduce spending respectively by $700 million and $500 million from current levels. Education advocates are concerned by the prospect of these potential cuts in education spending. Congress has expressed an interest in targeting the remaining funds of elementary and secondary education programs which will force the Department of Education to cut funding for higher education, job training, Head Start, and other Function 500 programs by a staggering $1.7 billion.

Another complicating factor is that spending caps established by Congress under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 will cut billions of dollars from the budget of the Labor, HHS, and the Education Appropriations Subcommittees—unless Congress acts to raise the caps. Even though the budget resolution calls for higher spending, these caps will necessitate deeper cuts in education to reconcile the gap between proposed spending and the maximum spending allowed under the 1997 Act. As written, current House legislation in the Labor, HHS, and Education Subcommittees would eliminate almost $4 billion from the Department of Education’s budget, and the Senate’s proposal would cut more than $3 billion. Either plan would be a serious encroachment on the viability of federal education programs.

Although President Clinton has succeeded in restoring education funding during budget negotiations in recent years, the complex politics surrounding the caps, tax cuts, budget surplus, and Social Security will no doubt make education funding a less important priority in upcoming negotiations. Education advocates fear that it will be difficult to achieve necessary funding increases, and it may be impossible to prevent congressional budget cuts.

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Distance Learning

U.S. Registrar of Copyrights Marybeth Peters presented findings and recommendations on the possible revision and expansion of copyright law to accommodate distance education users at a June 24 hearing of the House Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection.

The hearing focused on the Copyright Office’s recently released report, which was ordered as part of 1998 WIPO copyright legislation. Members of both the publishing industry and education community testified at this hearing, which was intended to consider the possibility of drafting legislation on the Copyright Offices’ report.

The U.S. Copyright Office’s report can be viewed on the Internet at http://lcweb.loc.gov.

At the hearing, Peters emphasized key points of the report, which was based on an extensive study including hearings with leaders in the education and content communities. Peters stressed that immediate legislation is necessary to maintain the careful balance that the 1976 Copyright Act struck between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of students, teacher, and educators. Congress ordered the study because parts of the 1976 law no longer protect distance learners who use digital technology that has replaced the older analog technology that was common when the original law was drafted. Specifically, Peters petitioned the Committee to clarify the meaning of a “transmission” in legislative history so that it includes transmission by both analog and digital means. She also argued that the categories of works that are copyright exempt for distance education should be expanded to include audiovisual and multimedia works, as long as they are viewed in “reasonable and limited portions.”

Law Library Director of UNC–Chapel Hill Laura Gasaway noted in her testimony that a “limited portion” rule makes little sense because the law would permit a student in a physical classroom to watch an educational video, whereas a distance student could watch only a portion of that content. In response to a question from Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), Gasaway asked the Committee members if they were educators teaching a class on the human digestive system, which portion would they take away for distance students? Rep. Boucher suggested that the legislation might be written to allow the use of complete works in certain cases.

Also testifying at the hearing were former Colorado Congresswoman, Patricia Schroeder, on behalf of the Association of American Publishers, and Fritz Attaway from the Motion Picture Association of America, who argued against the need to make changes in the law. More hearings will likely follow as the Committee begins to consider drafting distance learning legislation.

New Millennium Classrooms Act on Fast Track in Congress

The “New Millennium Classrooms Act” (H.R. 2308/S. 542) has been introduced in both the House and the Senate. This bill expands and extends the law in an attempt to make donating computers to schools more attractive to businesses. This bill includes a 30% tax credit, and a 50% tax credit on donations contingent upon the location of the recipients. The bill has drawn criticism from educators who think that a generous tax credit for three-year-old hardware will create more problems than it solves. The legislation is supported by Gateway, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Chamber of Commerce.

On July 14, ISTE and CoSN sent a joint letter to the members of the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees to protest the consideration of the “New Millennium Classrooms Act.” This legislation promises attractive tax credits to companies that donate used computers (3 years old or newer) to schools.

While supporting the goal of the legislation, the letter warned that “the initial cost of a computer is only a small part of the total cost of ownership.” The maintenance, support, and software that schools and libraries would need to invest in to upgrade and integrate such hardware could be prohibitively expensive and technologically difficult.

The letter also warns that donated computers may not be Y2K compliant, and would become a costly commitment and administrative burden for the schools instead of being useful tools. ISTE argued that these generous tax incentives might dissuade companies from donating newer technology and discourage local communities from investing in appropriate technology for their schools and libraries.

Other groups have also weighed in against the bill including the National Education Association, the national School Boards Association, and a number of other computer companies.

The New Millennium Classrooms Act is expected to be offered as an amendment to both the House and Senate tax bills before Congress recesses next week.

Congress Moves Toward Internet Filtering

Both the House and the Senate have taken significant steps toward passing a controversial law that would require schools and libraries who participate in the E-Rate program to install filtering or blocking software on computers with Internet access. Though education advocates have long opposed this legislation, language was passed by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee as well as in the House of Representatives as an amendment to the Juvenile Justice Bill.

On June 17, the House passed the “Children’s Internet Protection Act” as an amendment to the Juvenile Justice Bill. Sponsored by Rep. Bob Franks (R-NJ), the bill would require any school or library receiving E-Rate funds to use filtering software to censor Internet content that “contains detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of explicit sexual or violent material.” The legislation creates serious first amendment questions and would necessitate establishing federal standards for obscenity and violence, leaving the enforcement of those standards to the Department of Justice and police discretion. Schools and libraries that do not comply within 30 days would have their E-Rate funding revoked, retroactive to the beginning of the E-Rate program.

Although the Senate did not include a similar provision in its version of the Juvenile Justice Bill, the Senate Commerce Committee passed similar legislation on June 23 by a unanimous voice vote. Sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the Senate version (S. 97) requires installation and use of filtering and blocking software on all computers to be eligible for E-rate discounts. Some changes were made to the bill to lessen its administrative impact. Blocking and filtering software was also made eligible for E-rate discount.

“This approach provides a minimum floor for what must be blocked—that material which is patently illegal, while providing local authorities the broadest latitude to block other material like hate speech and racist material, how-to manuals on bomb making, and information on illegal drugs,” said McCain.

But many education and library advocates disagree. In the yearlong debate on mandatory filtering, educators have warned that the cost, support, implementation, and questionable effectiveness of filtering tools makes such a plan problematic and burdensome. Furthermore, they have argued that a national policy on filtering removes the careful decision making that is taking place nationwide at the local level by community leaders—the people who are best informed to make an appropriate decision. In fact, many (if not most) schools and libraries already maintain Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) for responsible Internet use, many of which require filtering technology.

At the hearing, Sen. John Kerrey (D-MA) raised concerns that the McCain bill is an unfunded mandate requiring schools and libraries to purchase filtering software and equipment. Kerrey also assailed the legislation as an attempt to impose a “one size fits all” policy on a complex problem that should be addressed in local communities.

Libraries are particularly hard hit by the filtering mandate. They will be required to ensure that filters are in use whenever minors are using them, which means that libraries will either need to supervise all terminals accessible by minors or place blocking and filtering devices on all terminals. The American Library Association warned that, “S. 97 not only writes into federal law a single and highly flawed technological approach to protecting children online, it forces libraries to broadly employ that technology in a manner that threatens the rights of all library users.”

Neither the House nor Senate has announced further action on this legislation, but with the Juvenile Justice bill moving to conference, more action is expected by fall.

E-Rate Funding Commitment Letter Waves Hit

The Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) began sending out waves of Year Two E-rate funding commitment letters on July 12, 1999. By late July, more than 8,400 Funding Commitment Decisions Letters had been mailed, allocating more than $137 million in E-rate funds for the 1999–2000 program year. Letters have reached schools and libraries in all 50 states and will continue to be mailed on a weekly basis.

The SLD has determined that funding is sufficient to provide discounts for internal connection requests at the 70% discount level and above for all applications submitted within the filing window. This action matches the intent expressed by the Federal Communications Commission to fully fund the requests for internal connections to at least the same level of discount supported during the first funding year.

The SLD is also in the process of distributing commitments totaling $16.7 million for about 400 previously rejected applications that were successfully appealed to the SLD. The Federal Communications Commission has proposed giving these applicants six additional months to complete their installations, but that policy has not been formally approved yet.

E-Rate Hearing: Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing

The House Judiciary Administrative Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee held a hearing on July 29, intended to examine actions by Federal Agencies that leverage “illegal” taxes on the American people. The Taxpayers Defense Act would prohibit Federal Agencies from acting outside of their authority to leverage fees on taxpayers that are not congressionally mandated. One of the intended targets of the hearing was the E-Rate.

Testifying on behalf of EdLiNC, Matt Ames, the lawyer who represents the coalition in the lawsuit in the 5th Circuit, testified before the subcommittee that the E-rate was well within the authority of the FCC. Also testifying was Celpage, the Puerto Rico–based paging company that filed the original case in the 5th Circuit claiming that universal service is an unconstitutional tax on consumers.

The E-Rate was only one of several programs focused on in the hearing, which was poorly attended and garnered no press interest. The lack of interest in the hearing may signal waning interest in attacks on the E-Rate. Few members of the House of Representatives appear interested in going after the E-Rate. Subcommittee Chairman George Gekas (R-PA) acknowledged that the E-Rate was moving forward and this legislation was unlikely to go anywhere.

Rep. Istook Reintroduces Measure to Require Filtering

On July 20, Rep. Ernest Istook, Jr. (R-OK) introduced H.R. 2560, the Child Protection Act of 1999. The bill would require schools and public libraries—as a condition of receiving federal funds from any federal agency for the acquisition or operation of computers—to install filters to protect children from obscenity and child pornography. The bill is similar to the amendment Istook offered last year to the FY99 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, however late in the appropriations process Istook’s amendment was dropped.

H.R. 2560 would require any elementary school, secondary school, or public library receiving federal funds for the acquisition or operation of computers accessible to minors and with access to the Internet to:

1. install software “adequately designed to prevent minors from obtaining access to any obscene information or child pornography using that computer”; and
2. “ensure that such software is operational whenever that computer is used by minors, except that such software’s operation may be temporarily interrupted to permit a minor to have access to information that is not obscene, is not child pornography, or is otherwise unprotected by the Constitution under the direct supervision of an adult designated by such school or library.”

It appears that the bill was introduced so that it could be offered when the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee meets to make FY2000 funding recommendations. This markup was originally scheduled for June 21. The markup was postponed the same day, most likely until September.

Comments Filed with the NTIA

Eight education organizations, including ISTE and CoSN, filed comments with the FCC in response to a proposal by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that all schools and libraries that receive federal E-rate funds be required to promulgate Internet AUPs.

The comments argued that intervention at the federal level is not necessary or appropriate—and that these are decisions that should be left to local school and library boards and administrators that best understand the needs of their communities. The comments also argued that, in the event the FCC decides to adopt the NTIA recommended mandate for AUPs, that this certification process should not be imposed on Year-Two funding.

Prepared by Leslie Harris, Adeena Colbert, and Phil Ugelow
On behalf of the International Society for Technology in Education.