WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, an amendment sponsored by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) to help bridge the digital divide passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 50-49. The Mikulski amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (S.1) will provide $100 million in federal funding over the next five years to establish 1,000 community technology centers across the country. The amendment fills a technology void that existed in the original legislation by targeting resources to low-income areas and providing students and families with access to computers and computer training.

The 1,000 new community technology centers will be run by community organizations such as the local YMCA, Urban League, or public library. Competitive grants from the federal government will be awarded to community-based organizations with at least half of the funds for these organizations coming from the private sector, thus encouraging communities to build public/private partnerships around the country.

Senator Mikulski introduced her amendment on the Senate floor late last night. In her statement, she argued the importance of this legislation.

"Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It is very straight forward. It is a great public investment in getting our children ready for their future.

"What this amendment does is provide for the establishment of community technology centers in the United States under the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It would authorize $100 million to create 1,000 community-based tech centers around the country. These centers would be created and run by community-based groups, such as the YMCA, the Urban League, or even a public library.

"The Federal Government would provide competitive grants to these community-based groups. By the third year of funding at least half of the funds would come from the private sector. In year one, 30 percent would come from the private sector and in year two, 40 percent must come from the private sector. Again, by year three the funding would be 50-50; 50 percent from the Federal Government and 50 percent from the community-based groups. This is truly an excellent example of a public-private partnership and maximization of federal funds.

"By funding community technology centers, we will be helping to build public-private partnerships around the country. I want to stress that the nonprofit sector is eager to form these partnerships.

"Why do we need this amendment? First of all, in the President's education bill there is no provision for community technology centers. The President's budget indicates that money for these tech centers would have come from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) community development block grant funding. So why do we want this in ESEA? We want it in ESEA because essentially it takes technology education to where people learn in their communities.

"What would this mean for local communities? It would mean a safe haven for children where they could learn how to use computers--use them to do homework--use them to access the Internet. It means job training for adults who could use the technology centers to either get new skills and new tools to enter the new economy or to upgrade their skills.

"Also, these centers would serve all regions, races, and ethnic groups. They will be where they are needed, where there is often limited access to technology. They will be in urban, rural, and suburban areas. They will be in Appalachia and Native American reservations, and urban centers.

"Why do we need those? First of all, I want to acknowledge the fantastic work that Senator Jeffords has done in advocating something called the 21st century learning centers. He has, indeed, been a great advocate of that, along with his colleague, Senator Judd Gregg. They really have been excellent in establishing these learning centers.

"They are excellent programs, but they are primarily in schools. Most of them are only for children. And most of them operate during very specific hours. Some are open just a few hours a day; most do not necessarily focus on technology. I want to acknowledge that the one in Vermont is open weekends and even in the summer. So Vermont is really doing a great job.

"But why do we need these community tech centers in the community? In some places schools are either too worn out or too dated to be wired for the future. We have school facilities in desperate need of modernization. And the poorer the community, usually the poorer the physical condition of the school. Community Technology Centers would ensure that technology is in the community.

"Second, it is multi-generational. This means it could be used during the day for adults and seniors and in the afternoons for structured after-school activities for children, bringing them to technology. It also could be open at night and on weekends. Also, it removes barriers to learning.

"In many of our communities, new immigrants are shy about coming into schools, particularly adults. There is the need to reach out to men who very often want to upgrade their skills, to be able to come into a new workforce. Certainly, in my own community of Baltimore we see that. But they can sometimes feel awkward at age 28, 38, or 48 walking into a school building. But they could walk into a community tech center.

"This is why we believe that in addition to the 21st century learning centers, these community technology centers are needed.

"Let me cite a few examples. The Baltimore Urban League received a grant to create a community tech center. They created a computer clubhouse, an after-school computer center for teenagers. The young people were taught computer skills. They also then teach other young people. They are engaging in desktop publishing. During the day, it is used for career development, focused on Welfare-to-Work.

"In rural Odem, TX, we have another example of a community tech center that both worked with the people in the community but was also a source for distance learning. In a school district in Arizona, it helped young Native Americans enter the high-tech workforce.

"I could go on with example after example. Let me tell my colleagues this: Thanks to the leadership of Senators Harkin and Specter, and Labor-HHS, they funded community tech centers through appropriations. Be aware that they were never authorized. Essentially, Harkin and Specter just went ahead and did it. God bless them for doing it. But they could only, because of the lack of authorization, fund very few of these programs. In 1999, over 750 community organizations applied for community technology center money. Under the great leadership of Harkin-Specter, there was only enough money to give grants to 40 of these community organizations.

"There is so much pent-up need, it points to why my legislation is needed. I believe we do not have a worker shortage in the United States -- we have a skills shortage. Even with dot-coms now dot-bombing, there still is a great need for technology workers. In fact, in practically every field technology literacy is needed. Manufacturing in my own State has gone from smokestack to cyberstack. We must have people with the skills who are ready. We don't have a worker shortage in this country; we have a skill shortage in this country. In addition to schools and libraries, to have 1,000 community technology centers would be a welcome addition into these communities and neighborhoods for people to have the opportunity to truly enter this new world."