[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 138 (Wednesday, September 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      THE CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss 
a piece of legislation being introduced by my colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lehman] and myself, dealing with the Classroom 
Technology Act, and I would like to yield to my colleague [Mr. Lehman].
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Speaker, there is much talk about the information 
superhighway and how the information revolution will affect our 
Nation's economic competitiveness. We usually discuss the information 
revolution in terms of maximizing worker productivity and improving the 
bottomline for business in the global economy, but there is one major 
sector in our Nation that is being left to scavenge back on the home 
front during the information revolution--education.
  Students cannot be adequately prepared for the use of technology in 
the workplace if they are not educated with computers and other 
technologies in the classroom. Being able to program the VCR or play 
video games is not good enough. We--as community leaders, as 
policymakers, as concerned Americans--must take the lead in helping our 
schools take advantage of computer, telecommunications, and other 
technologies to ensure that our children are eager to take on the world 
and its educational resources.
  We have seen remarkable changes in learning technology over the past 
quarter century. And yet, technology has not transformed schools to the 
degree it has other aspects of our society. In fact, a teacher from the 
little red schoolhouse of last century could walk into a classroom 
today and feel comfortable because so little has changed.
  While many schools have and use computers in instruction, few schools 
have the capacity for any degree of two-way voice, data and video 
networking with data bases and with other schools. Only 12 percent of 
U.S. classrooms have a telephone. Only 4 percent of teachers have a 
modem, and only 4 percent have access to internet--NEA survey.
  The classroom remains isolated and simplistic at a time when the 
world is becoming more interactive and complex. We are letting our 
budgetary and other constraints limit the possibilities for our 
students, our future work force. Instead of yielding to these 
constraints, we must push ahead with innovative ways of meeting our 
students' technological needs.
  Earlier, this year, Mr. Speaker, we made the initial plans to meet 
these needs when we passed the Goals 2000 legislation, which 
incorporated the use of technology and telecommunications in achieving 
the national education goals. This legislation, as well as the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization--which includes 
a title for technology for education for the first time--set the 
standards which schools must aim for.
  Unfortunately, the schools have not been provided with the tools to 
meet these standards. A report by the National Institutes of Standards 
and Technology underscored this fact when it determined that the 
computer base in elementary and secondary schools is completely 
inadequate to meet the telecommunications applications of today. The 
report notes that of 80 percent of the computer base, over 50 percent 
are Apple Two's. This puts the students-to-computers ratio of 14 to 1 
in the United States in proper perspective--quality education data 
study.
  If there are 14 students sharing one computer, and that computer is 
10 years--and at least 4 generations--old, it is obvious that very 
little innovation is taking place. While these computers are adequate 
for routine tasks such as games and drills, educational software is no 
longer developed for them and the students are definitely not learning 
to use equipment that they will encounter in the workplace. This is 
like teaching students to drive on the highway in a Model T.
  That is assuming that the teachers are able to teach the students how 
to drive. Less than half of school districts in the United States have 
an introductory computer course for their teachers--IEA computers in 
education study. Because of this lack of formal training, teachers must 
learn as they go along and often only when the school computer is 
available. As a result, it takes teachers an average of 5 to 6 years to 
develop expertise in computer use which can be relayed to their 
students--NEA survey.
  An additional gap in the quality of educational technology is the 
lack of connections between business and schools. For example, my State 
of California ranks last nationally in the computer-per-student 
ration--quality education data. In a State that boasts of cutting edge 
technology companies, this is an appalling statistic.
  I believe that business and schools should link up to provide our 
children with effective technologies that will prepare them for the 
modern workplace. That is why I am introducing legislation with my 
colleague from California, Mr. Lewis, which would provide incentives to 
businesses to share outdated equipment with schools and establishing a 
fund to improve schools' telecommunications capabilities.
  The Classroom Technology Act encourages elementary and secondary 
schools, colleges, libraries, and other information sources to join 
together to share the resources they have through telecommunications. 
Once the urban and rural regions of the country are linked, connections 
to national networks of information and programming will be easier to 
make.
  I strongly believe that the convergence of information and 
telecommunications will allow students to overcome income, geography, 
and other barriers to learning. Mr. Speaker, this can only benefit us 
as a society and as a nation because these students will grow up more 
aggressive and more well-rounded when it comes to information 
technology. We must begin the fight for our economic future today--I 
call on my colleagues to join me in laying the groundwork for our 
Nation's survival.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
colleague's contribution.
  The least that we had hoped from the initial stages of this 
legislation is to create models, perhaps in more than one urban center, 
models in a rural sector of California and other States that 
essentially would provide a design as to how computers and computer 
technology can be used to better enhance and prepare our students for 
the technology so necessary for tomorrow, not just in the workplace but 
for their own personal use as well.
  This is a critical moment in the history of American education. The 
use of technology has exploded, affecting all aspects of life from the 
workplace to the living room. Our children must have access to new 
technologies and information tools like computers, networks, CD-ROMs, 
modems, and the emerging information superhighway. To produce 
tomorrow's leaders, we must provide our children and their teachers 
with this kind of technology.
  To better serve the needs of students and teachers, Congressman 
Lehman and I have introduced H.R. 5013, the Classroom Technology Act of 
1994. This legislation will promote the use of technology and 
telecommunications in classrooms throughout the country. The bill 
focuses on school technology, grant programs, and incentives for 
public/private partnerships. It will give students the technology 
necessary to communicate with libraries, other students, and experts in 
every field across the country and around the world. This will be 
especially useful to rural districts like my own, where students often 
have trouble accessing essential information.
  The Classroom Technology Act directs the Department of Education to 
coordinate educational technology activities among the related Federal 
and State agencies, industry leaders, and interested educational and 
parental organizations. There are many individual schools in the United 
States that have incredibly advanced programs for their students. I am 
fortunate enough to have one such school in my district, the Science 
and Technology Center in Apple Valley. I feel that it is vital that 
schools with good programs, like the Science and Technology Center, 
share their knowledge and experience with other schools around the 
Nation. Our bill establishes an Office of Educational Technology that 
would oversee educational technology activities nationwide and help 
less progressive schools implement the programs proven valuable and 
successful.
  Furthermore, our bill encourages public and private sector 
cooperation in providing schools with hardware and software. It 
establishes a clearinghouse with an 800 number at the Department of 
Commerce for businesses to donate their old computers. As you know, 
corporations are forever updating their equipment. While no longer 
state of the art, most of such equipment can still be extremely 
valuable, especially to schools which often lack the funds necessary to 
purchase any equipment at all. Under H.R. 5013, the businesses can get 
rid of older machinery and receive a tax break for the donation. Our 
schools will certainly benefit from the free technology.
  H.R. 5013 would also direct the National Telecommunications 
Infrastructure Administration [NTIA] to set aside a percentage, 33 to 
40 percent of its funds from the matching grant program for educational 
purposes. It would set up a joint Department of Education and NTIA fund 
for matching grants, the quickest way to maximize a modest amount of 
Federal money. The funds would come from the universal user fees and 
penalties that are collected by the Federal Communications Commission 
from telephone companies. The money would be used for school site 
infrastructure, from wiring to computers to satellite dishes.
  While California is a high-technology giant in the eyes of the world, 
its classrooms are woefully unprepared to teach students the computer 
skills they need. With the rapid advancements in computer technology, 
we cannot afford to let a generation of students fall behind other 
leading industrialized countries. The Classroom Technology Act creates 
a public-private partnership involving students, parents, education, 
business, and Government. It will ensure that today's students are 
equipped for tomorrow's jobs.

 Classroom Technology Act Would Integrate Computer Learning Throughout 
                                 Nation

       Washington, DC.--Citing the need to improve computer 
     learning in America's classrooms to prepare students for the 
     job markets of the future, Congressman Jerry Lewis has 
     introduced the Classroom Technology Act of 1994, legislation 
     that encourages the use of emerging computer and 
     telecommunications technologies in a classroom setting 
     largely through building partnerships between the business 
     and education community.
       ``Today's students and tomorrow's leaders should and must 
     be computer literate and technologically equipped to acquire 
     the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow,'' Lewis said.
       ``The information superhighway has become more than just a 
     futuristic pipedream. It is our present--and our future. We 
     must begin to prepare our classrooms for this necessary 
     change in education.''
       According to Lewis, the measure directs the Department of 
     Education to formulate a plan to coordinate educational 
     technology activities among federal and state agencies, while 
     also involving high-tech industry leaders and interested 
     educational and parental organizations. The legislation would 
     direct the National Telecommunications Infrastructure 
     Administration to set aside a percentage (33-40%) of its 
     funding for educational purposes.
       The bill also encourages public/private cooperation in 
     providing schools with computer hardware and software through 
     establishing a computer clearinghouse with a toll-free number 
     at the Department of Commerce. Under the legislation, 
     businesses would receive a tax-break for the donation of 
     outdated equipment, while students would receive free working 
     computers.
       ``While California is a high-tech giant in the eyes of the 
     world, its classrooms are woefully unprepared to teach 
     students the computer skills they need,'' Lewis said.
       ``With the rapid advancements in computer technology, we 
     cannot afford to let a generation of students fall behind 
     other leading industrialized countries. The Classroom 
     Technology Act creates a public-private partnership of 
     students, parents, education, business and government to 
     ensure that today's students are equipped for tomorrow's 
     jobs.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Scott). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] is recognize for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with a motion adopted by 
unanimous voice vote of the Committee on Energy and Commerce today, I 
am introducing legislation to extend and preserve the status quo 
through February 28, 1995, relative to the pending dispute between the 
Soo Line Railroad Co. and certain of its employees represented by the 
United Transportation Union. Mr. Moorhead, ranking Republican of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Swift, chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, and Mr. Oxley, 
ranking Republican of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous 
Materials, are original cosponsors of this legislation.
  The Soo Line Railroad is the ninth largest of 15 class I railroads in 
the United States. It operates over 5,000 miles of line in 11 States, 
including Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, 
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The United 
Transportation Union [UTU] represents more than 1,000 employees of the 
Soo Line Railroad, including conductors and trainmen.
  Since 1988, the Soo Line and UTU have been in contract negotiations 
pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act [RLA]. To date, all 
efforts to reach a voluntary agreement have failed, including efforts 
of the National Mediation Board [NMB] to mediate the dispute. In June 
1994, the parties rejected the NMB's proffer of arbitration, thus 
triggering a 30-day cooling-off period that expired on July 14, 1994. 
Under the terms of the RLA, after the expiration of this 30-day period, 
either party was free to resort to so-called self-help, for example, 
the railroad could impose new contractual terms unilaterally or the 
union could engage in a strike.
  On July 14, the Soo Line Railroad imposed new contract terms and the 
union commenced a strike. This situation persisted for 47 days until 
the President, by Executive Order 12925, effective August 29, 1994, 
created Presidential Emergency Board [PEB] No. 225. The President's 
order was based on the judgment of the NMB that the dispute ``threatens 
substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree that would 
deprive a section of the country of essential transportation service.''
  By the terms of the President's Executive Order, PEB, 225 was 
directed to investigate the dispute and report to the President within 
30 days of its creation. As in other similar situations, the parties 
subsequently have stipulated to an extension of time for submission of 
the PEB's report until October 14, 1994, by letter dated September 21, 
1994 from the chairman of PEB 225. Under the RLA, a final 30-day 
cooling off period follows the submission of the PEB's report. If no 
voluntary settlement is reached within such period, the parties are 
free to resort to self-help. Thus, assuming no further extensions, the 
date when the parties could engage lawfully in self-help activities is 
November 14, 1994.
  Due to the potential ramifications that self-help could produce in 
this situation--at a time when Congress will have adjourned--the 
members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce believe it is essential 
that legislation be enacted that extends the final cooling off period 
until after the 104th Congress has been convened and organized. Such 
action is consistent with prior precedents, such as the 1988 Chicago 
NorthWestern strike, where the final cooling off period was extended 
past the date of the August recess.
  Under the terms of the motion approved by the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce today, I have been directed to take action to have the 
resolution considered in the House under suspension of the rules at the 
earliest possible date. I, with the cooperation and support of our 
Republican Members, will follow through fully with the committee's 
instructions and hereby notify Members of the House of our intent to 
consider this legislation on the suspension calendar at the earliest 
possible date.
  Clearly, it is the strong and unequivocal desire of every Member of 
Congress that the parties reach a voluntary agreement. The action 
authorized by the Committee on Energy and Commerce today encourages 
voluntary agreement of the parties by giving them sufficient additional 
time to consider the report of PEB 225 and to negotiate a final 
resolution of all outstanding issues. It is our sincere hope and desire 
that the parties redouble their efforts to bring an end to this dispute 
prior to February 28, 1995.

                          ____________________