[Senate Report 108-34]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-34
======================================================================
Calendar No. 60
DIGITAL AND WIRELESS NETWORK TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ACT OF 2003
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 196
April 7, 2003.--Ordered to be printed
19-010 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred eighth congress
first session
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois RON WYDEN, Oregon
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
Jeanne Bumpus, Staff Director and General Counsel
Ann Begeman, Deputy Staff Director
Robert W. Chamberlin, Chief Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
(ii)
Calendar No. 60
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-34
======================================================================
DIGITAL AND WIRELESS NETWORK TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ACT OF 2003
_______
April 7, 2003.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 196]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 196), ``To establish a digital
and wireless network technology program, and for other purposes'',
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with
amendments and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill, as amended, is to establish a $250
million per year grant program within the National Science
Foundation (NSF) from fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to
strengthen the ability of minority-serving institutions (MSIs),
which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), and tribal
colleges and universities, to provide instruction in digital
and wireless network technologies, and enhance the nation's
digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing the national
investment in telecommunications and technology infrastructure
at these institutions.
The bill is designed to close the ``economic opportunity
divide'' that exists between the graduates of MSIs and
graduates of other institutions of higher learning, and thus,
improve the quality of education for students at MSIs. These
institutions will continue to play an important role in
providing the nation with a well educated and talented
workforce.
Background and Needs
HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
In October 2000, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) released the report,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of
Networking and Connectivity. The report was the product of a
study to gain an overall perspective of the networking
capabilities and connectivity of HBCUs, and to obtain data that
would evaluate the capacity of HBCUs to function as part of the
national global network. The study was sent to 118 colleges and
universities. Eighty colleges (68 percent) responded.
The report found that 88 percent of the respondents had
access to T-1 lines, which provide a bandwidth of a specific
speed rate and capacity suitable for basic functions, from
their local Internet service providers and operating companies.
Forty-three percent of the respondents have Asynchronous
Transfer Mode (ATM) technology that allows for greater
bandwidth and broader Internet technology access. Of the 43
percent having such access, only 45 percent indicated they use
the technology. Twenty-nine percent of HBCUs report having
access to wireless and 43 percent of those with access were
using it.
These technology restrictions limit HBCUs' abilities to fully
utilize existing technology applications and connect with other
institutions of higher education. For example, many schools do
not have video streaming capability. Only 17 percent of the
respondents reported minimal use of collaborative groupware,
online registration, e-commerce, and other applications. Fewer
than 15 percent of the respondents offered distance-learning
programs. HBCU connectivity with libraries, State college
systems, the Federal government, and other resources remains
limited.
In addition, the report found limited student computer
ownership. No HBCU reported requiring computer ownership, and
only 15 percent recommended that students bring their own
computers to campus. Of the respondents, 60 of the schools
estimated that 25 percent of their students owned computers,
and 13 schools reported that no students owned computers. Over
75 percent of HBCUs' students rely on the universities to
provide computers. However, only 50 percent of the respondents
provide students access to computers in computer laboratories,
libraries, classrooms, and other locations, while 45 percent
have dormitory common areas with access to the campus backbone.
The NTIA report suggested that the following weaknesses must
be addressed: (1) improvement of high-speed connectivity rates;
(2) dramatic improvement of student to computer ownership
ratios; (3) improvement of the strategic planning process; and
(4) willingness to incorporate innovative technologies into
campus networks.
TRIBAL COLLEGES
Tribal colleges also have demonstrated a need for improved
technology infrastructure. For example, only one tribal college
currently has funding for high bandwidth connectivity. All of
the tribal colleges have some degree of T-1 access, but most
only have fractional T-1 access. In addition, tribal colleges
struggle to hire and maintain computer technicians, offering
salaries at half of the industry averages. At Dull Knife
Memorial College in Montana, for example, only two computers
provide Internet access for 240 students. Little Big Horn
College in Montana would like to extend its technology classes
online to students in Pryor, Montana, which is 85 miles away.
However, the only high-speed Internet connection
currentlyavailable in Pryor is used by a medical center. High costs
prevent the installation of a second high-speed Internet line. In
addition, only two of the 500 students at Little Big Horn College have
computers at home.
Physical infrastructure is also a problem at tribal colleges.
According to the American Indian College Fund, most tribal
colleges are located on poor, isolated Indian reservations, and
operate in trailers, converted warehouses, or abandoned
buildings. Until recently, accommodations at one tribal college
included a tin shack abandoned by a uranium mining company.
Despite these bleak examples, there are tribal colleges that
have crossed the ``digital divide.'' Though far from state-of-
the-art, the Crownpoint Institute of Technology in New Mexico
has 250 computers linked to the Internet via satellite and a 90
percent technology job placement rate.
HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS
HSIs are two- and four-year colleges and universities, whose
Hispanic American student enrollment is 25 percent or greater
of total enrollment. Hispanics currently represent 14.5 percent
(3.6 million) of the total traditional college-age population.
By 2006, Hispanic undergraduates are expected to outnumber
African-American undergraduates for the first time. Over one
million Hispanics will be academically prepared to attend
college by 2015. In 1996, Hispanics composed 4 percent of
graduate students and had particularly low representation in
advanced degrees in engineering, mathematics, computer, and
physical sciences. HSIs suffer technology problems similar to
those of HBCUs, according to the Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities which represents HSIs.
Legislative History
S. 196 was introduced on January 17, 2003, by Senator Allen.
Senators McCain, Hollings, Campbell, Cochran, DeWine,
Fitzgerald, Graham, Grassley, Hutchison, Lott, Miller,
Santorum, Sessions, Stevens, Warner, Domenici, Talent, and
Kerry are co-sponsors of the legislation.
S. 196 was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and a hearing on the legislation was held on
February 13, 2003. Witnesses included Dr. William DeLauder,
President, Delaware State University; Dr. Ricardo Fernandez,
President, Herbert H. Lehman College, City University of New
York; The Honorable Floyd Flake, President, Wilberforce
University; Dr. Marie McDemmond, President, Norfolk State
University; and Dr. Gerald ``Carty'' Monette, President, Turtle
Mountain Community College. These witnesses discussed the
technology infrastructure needs at MSIs, and the efforts by
such institutions to address their technology needs.
On March 13, 2003, the Committee met in open executive
session and, by a voice vote, ordered S. 196 reported with
amendments. The amendments offered by Senator Allen eliminate
the use of awards under the program to train institutions'
board members, add remote technical support to the ways in
which institutions may receive technical assistance under the
program, and allow for the use of funds for planning grants,
consistent with other NSF programs, and the development of
strategic plans for information technology investments.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 18, 2003.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman. The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 196, the Digital and
Wireless Network Technology Program Act of 2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen
Gramp.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
S. 196--Digital and Wireless Network Technology Program Act of 2003
Summary: S. 196 would create a new grant program at the
National Science Foundation (NSF) for educational institutions
that serve minority students. Eligible institutions could use
the funds to improve instructional capabilities and
infrastructure related to digital and wireless technologies.
The bill would authorize the appropriation of $250 million for
each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for this program and
would require grant recipients to provide matching funds under
certain conditions. A new Office of Digital and Wireless
Network Technology would administer the program with guidance
from a special advisory council.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 196 would cost $823 million over
the 2004-2008 period. CBO estimates that enacting this bill
would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.
S. 196 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 196 is shown in the following table. For
this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized will be
appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and that
outlays will occur at rates similar to other NSF programs. The
costs of this legislation fall within budget function 250
(general science, space, and technology).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in million of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level....................................... 0 250 250 250 250 250
Estimated Outlays......................................... 0 30 130 200 228 235
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
S. 196 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments. The bill would benefit public universities by
authorizing $250 million per year, for fiscal years 2004
through 2008, for institutions of higher education, including
public universities, to strengthen their capacity to provide
instruction in digital network technologies. Any costs incurred
by public universities to create annual reports, provide
requested data to NSF, or to match federal funds, would be
voluntary. Any costs incurred by state and local education
agencies that participate in joint ventures with the grantees
also would be voluntary.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Greg Waring; and
Impact on the Private Sector: Jean Talarico.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
The Committee believes that the bill would not subject any
individuals or businesses affected by the legislation to any
additional regulation.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
This legislation would not have an adverse impact on the
nation. It authorizes funding for digital and wireless network
technologies related awards to MSIs.
PRIVACY
This legislation would not have a negative impact on the
personal privacy of individuals.
PAPERWORK
This legislation would require each award recipient to
provide to NSF any relevant institutional statistical or
demographic data as requested by NSF. Each award recipient
would be required to submit an annual report to the Director of
NSF detailing its use of funding. The Director would be
required to submit to Congress a bi-annual report based upon an
evaluation of the program including a recommendation on the
need for continued Federal support of the program.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 provides that the bill, if enacted, would be cited
as the ``Digital and Wireless Network Technology Program Act of
2003.''
Section 2. Establishment of office
Section 2 would establish an Office of Digital and Wireless
Network Technology within the NSF to serve the following
purposes: to strengthen the ability of eligible institutions to
provide instruction via digital and wireless networks through
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements; and to strengthen
the national digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing
national investments in eligible institutions. The Committee
intends that funding for administrative and management support
for this office will be provided within the funding authorized
under section 9 of the bill.
Section 3. Activities supported
Section 3 would allow the Office of Digital and Wireless
Network Technology to award grants, contracts, or cooperative
agreements to eligible institutions. Recipients would be
allowed to use such awards for the following purposes:
To acquire equipment, instrumentation,
networking capability, hardware and software, digital
network technology, wireless technology, and
infrastructure;
To develop and provide educational services
for students or faculty seeking an approved degree or
certificate;
To provide teacher education, library and
media specialist training, and preschool and teacher
aid certification to those individuals who want to
acquire or enhance technology skills for use in the
classroom;
To implement joint projects and consortia to
provide technology education to a State or State
education agency, local education agency, community-
based organizations, national non-profit organizations,
or businesses, including minority businesses;
To provide professional development to
administrators and faculty of institutions with
institutional responsibility for technology education;
To provide eligible institutions with
capacity-building technical assistance through remote
technical support, workshops, distance learning, new
technologies, and other technological applications;
To foster the use of information
communications technology to increase scientific,
mathematical, engineering, and technology instruction
and research; and
To develop proposals to be submitted under
the Act and to develop strategic plans for information
technology investments.
For any awards to develop proposals to be submitted under the
Act or for planning grants, the Committee expects that the
Director will establish a procedure for the awarding of such
grants, and is expected that such grants will not exceed
$100,000.
Section 4. Application and review procedure
Subsection (a) would require that for an institution to be
eligible to receive a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement, it must submit an application to the Director. Such
an application would be submitted according to requirements
developed by the Director. The Director, along with the
Advisory Council established under subsection (b), would
establish an acceptance procedure, in addition to a
notification procedure, and a statement regarding the
availability of funds. The Committee expects the Director to
work with the Advisory Committee to establish the appropriate
review and selectioncriteria for evaluation of proposals
received under the program.
Subsection (b) would require the Director to establish an
Advisory Council. The Advisory Council would be responsible for
advising the Director on the best approaches for involving
eligible institutions in the activities described in section 3.
In selecting the members of the Advisory Council, the Director
may consult with representatives of appropriate organizations,
including representatives of eligible institutions, to ensure
that the membership of the advisory council reflects
participation by technology and telecommunications
institutions, minority businesses, communities of eligible
institutions, Federal agency personnel, and other individuals
who are knowledgeable about eligible institutions and
technology issues.
Subsection (c) would require each institution awarded a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under section 2 to
provide the new Office of Digital and Wireless Technology with
any relevant institutional statistical or demographic data it
requests.
Subsection (d) would require the Director to hold an annual
meeting with those institutions that have received awards. Such
meetings are expected to foster collaborations and capacity
building activities among eligible institutions and disseminate
information and ideas generated as such meetings.
Section 5. Matching requirement
Section 5 would require that when an institution is awarded a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement by the Director, it
make available non-Federal contributions in an amount of that
is 25 percent of the award or $500,000, whichever is the lesser
amount. The Director would be required to waive the matching
requirement for any institution with no endowment, or an
endowment worth less than $50,000,000. Based upon testimony
concerning the financial institutions' financial situations
given at the February 13 hearing on the bill, the Committee
expects that a majority of the MSIs would qualify for exemption
from this matching requirement.
Section 6. Limitations
Subsection (a) would establish that an institution awarded
more than $2,500,000 shall not be eligible for another grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement, until every other eligible
institution that has applied for an award has received one.
Subsection (b) would clarify that even when each grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement has been awarded for the
implementation of a consortium or joint project, the funding
shall be made available to, and administered by, an eligible
institution.
Section 7. Annual report and evaluation
Subsection (a) would require each institution awarded a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, to submit an annual
report to the Director detailing its use of the funding.
Subsection (b) would require that the Director, in
consultation with the Secretary of Education, review the
reports required under subsection (a) and evaluate the program
authorized by section 3 on the basis of those reports every 2
years.
Subsection (c) would require that the Director, as part of
the evaluation of subsection (b), describe the activities
undertaken and assess the short- and long-range impact of
activities carried out with the use of the awards on the
students, faculty, and staff of the institutions.
Subsection (d) would require the Director to submit a report
to Congress based on the evaluation. The report shall include
such recommendations, as may be appropriate, including
recommendations concerning the continuing need for Federal
support of the program.
Section 8. Definitions
This section would define the terms ``eligible institution,''
``Director,'' and ``minority business.'' The term ``eligible
institution'' is as defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1061(2)). The term ``Director'' means the Director
of the National Science Foundation. The term ``minority
business'' includes HUBZone small businesses as defined in
section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p).
Section 9. Authorization of appropriations
Section 9 would authorize $250,000,000 to the Director of the
NSF for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, to carry out
the Act.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as
reported would make no change to existing law.