|
|
ISTE Washington Notes
News of U.S. educational technology policy and legislation, posted as a service of ISTE, the International Society for Technology in Education. Copyright © 2006 ISTE
Guide to acronyms used in Washington Notes
|
May 2006 Contents
House Passes a Budget Resolution and Both Chambers Move towards Appropriations
On May 18, after weeks of negotiations between moderate Republicans, conservative Republicans and House leadership, the full House of Representatives approved an FY 07 Budget Resolution on a vote of 218 to 210. The final Budget Resolution adheres to the spending limits proposed by the Administration in its FY07 Budget Proposal.
This action solidifies overall spending limits for the House. It is still uncertain if this House action will subsequently lead to an agreement with the Senate on a bicameral FY07 Budget Resolution. The Senate approved a Budget Resolution with far higher spending limits than the House version, and there are few legislative days left for negotiations in this Congress.
top
Moderate Republicans Push for Better Funding
Until May 18, moderate Republicans refused to support the Budget Resolution crafted and passed by the House Budget Committee, stating that it fell far short of their expectations for funding labor, health and education programs. Their position was bolstered by the Senate’s rather lopsided vote in favor of an amendment to the Senate’s FY07 Budget Resolution that added $7.1 billion to labor, health and education accounts.
House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R–CA) made some progress on this issue when he agreed to add $4.1 billion to the Labor, HHS and Education account by removing funds from Department of Defense accounts. This still left moderate Republicans $3 billion short of their goal. House leadership reportedly promised moderates that they would find a way to add another $3 billion to Labor, HHS, and Education funding during the appropriations process.
David Obey (D–WI), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee, cautioned that these promises were hollow and would not lead to more actual dollars later in the appropriations process. However, enough moderate Republicans were persuaded by the promise and the Budget Resolution passed.
top
Outlook for EETT Funding – Full Grassroots Press Needs to Begin Now!
House leadership’s promise of additional funds during the Appropriations process doesn’t guarantee results. But it does hold the potential for Congressional spending on education, including the Enhancing Education Through Technology program, to return to the much higher FY05 levels. If all went well, EETT could find itself with a funding level of nearly $500 million. The House education funding subcommittee is scheduled to vote on a funding bill on June 7.
“In order to make this a reality, however, we all need to actively work together to make our voices heard,“ said Hilary Goldmann, ISTE’s Director of Government Affairs. “We need to hold Congress’ feet to the fire if we are to realize an increase in funding for the EETT program.
“ISTE has been leading efforts inside the beltway to demonstrate support for the EETT program,” notes, Goldmann. “And now is the time for members of Congress to hear directly from their constituents about the importance of EETT and the impact the funding is having on schools and students in their districts.
“I urge you to visit the Education Technology Action Network (www.edtechactionnetwork.org). Make your voice heard! Send a letter to your congressional representative today. It's easy and only takes a few minutes.”
The House Appropriations Committee continues to move forward with its process, aiming to complete action on all spending bills, including the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill, which funds all education programs, prior to the July 4th recess. The Senate is expected to move much slower with its version of this bill.
House Commerce Committee—E–Rate Update
Over the past month, Congress’ pace has quickened considerably on moving telecommunications legislation. In late April and by a wide margin, the full House Commerce Committee passed telecommunications overhaul legislation authored by Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R–TX).
Chairman Barton has previously been on the record in opposition to the concept of universal service, so this bill contained no provisions aimed at reforming the universal service funding mechanism or the E–Rate program, which is funded through universal service. The full House may consider this bill just after the Memorial Day recess.
top
House Commerce Committee—Network Neutrality
Beyond the absence of universal service provisions, the Barton bill’s most controversial aspect is its very limited “network neutrality” provisions. The net neutrality issue involves whether or not telecommunications companies should be able to charge online companies to move data faster through their networks. The issue arose when some telecommunications CEOs stated they would not rule out charging for faster service.
Barton’s bill empowers the FCC to adjudicate disputes involving network neutrality and impose fines of up to $500,000 per violation, but does not specifically outlaw charging for faster speeds.
House Judiciary Committee James Sensenbrenner (R–WI) found this language too weak. He is preparing his own net neutrality bill that reportedly bars the practice of charging for faster service.
top
Senate Commerce Committee E–Rate Update
While the House Commerce Committee was working through its version of telecommunications reform, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R–AK) introduced comprehensive telecommunications legislation which did include language about overhauling universal service.
Several of the universal service provisions in Sen. Stevens’ bill impact E–rate directly.
- The provisions would permanently exempt universal service and the E–Rate from the Anti– Deficiency Act (ADA). The ADA’s arcane accounting standards caused the E–Rate program to shutdown for three months in 2004.
- The provisions would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish a system of sanctions for applicants and providers who knowingly and repeatedly violate program rules.
- They would require establishment of performance measures that show how efficiently and cost–effectively E–Rate funding is used.
The Senate Commerce Committee plans to hold three hearings on this legislation in May and June and then proceed to mark–up and approve the bill in Committee on June 20.
top
ISTE’s Position on E–Rate and Universal Service
ISTE is on record in support of a permanent ADA exemption and has proposed similar sanctions language to the FCC. ISTE does not support the bill’s formulation of performance measures, preferring to see the program measured on advancements in bandwidth and speed to classrooms and libraries over E–Rate supported connections.
top
New Social Networking Legislation Complicates Prospects
As the House and Senate Commerce Committees worked on broad–based overhauls of telecommunications legislation, Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R–PA) introduced new legislation that complicates the picture.
Rep. Fitzpatrick’s Deleting Online Predators Act would require that all schools and libraries receiving E–Rate funding block access to social networking and chat sites. The bill would permit this blocking to be disabled for use by an adult or students supervised by an adult for educational purposes. The bill also calls on the Federal Trade Commission to issue a consumer alert about social networking and chat sites.
Rep. Fitzpatrick said he introduced the legislation because “this new technology has become a feeding ground for child predators that use these sites as just another way to do our children harm.” Currently, sixteen House members have cosponsored this legislation. No Senate companion bill has been introduced yet.
This bill is reminiscent of the Children’s Internet Protection Act, a law passed and upheld by the courts several years ago that required all schools and libraries receiving E–Rate support to install blocking and filtering software in order to prevent minor's from accessing inappropriate content. At the time, opponents of CIPA argued that it represented a violation of the principle of local control of schools and imposed cost burdens on them. Similar arguments against this bill are likely.
top
From the Washington, D.C.
Office of Bernstein Strategy Group
*************************
The following message is posted as a service of ISTE,
the International Society for Technology in Education.
This message may not be reposted without this header.
Copyright © 2006 ISTE
|
