[Senate Report 109-94]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-94
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 143
THE MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 432
DATE deg.June 27, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred ninth congress
first session
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Virginia
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine BARBARA BOXER, California
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Lisa Sutherland, Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Deputy Staff Director
David Russell, Chief Counsel
Margaret Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Calendar No. 143
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-94
======================================================================
THE MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005
_______
June 27, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Stevens, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 432]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 432) to establish a digital and
wireless network technology program, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of the bill is to establish a $250 million per
year grant program within the National Science Foundation (NSF)
from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to strengthen the ability
of minority-serving institutions (MSIs), which include
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-
Serving Institutions (HSIs), tribal colleges and universities
(TCUs), Alaska Native-serving institutions, and Native
Hawaiian-serving institutions 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.
The bill would allow eligible institutions the opportunity
through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, to
acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking capability,
hardware and software, digital network technology, and wireless
technology/infrastructure to develop and provide educational
services. The grants also would be used for such activities as
campus wiring, equipment upgrades, technology training, and
hardware/software acquisition. MSIs could use the funds to
offer its students universal access to campus networks,
dramatically increase their connectivity rates, or make
necessary infrastructure improvements.
Through a peer-reviewed process, and in consultation with the
Director of the National Science Foundation, eligible
institutions could receive up to $2.5 million per year with a
25 percent cost-sharing (not to exceed $500,000). This matching
requirement, though, would be waived for any MSI with an
endowment of less than $50 million.
BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
Historically black colleges and universities
In October 2000 the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) released a 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 had Asynchronous
Transfer Mode technology that allows for greater bandwidth and
broader Internet technology access. Of the 43 percent that had
such access, only 45 percent indicated they used the
technology. Twenty-nine percent of HBCUs reported having access
to wireless and 43 percent of those with access were using it.
These technology restrictions limit HBCUs' abilities to
utilize existing technology applications fully 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 study 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 indicated that their students rely on the
universities to provide computers. However, only 50 percent of
the respondents reported that they provide students access to
computers in computer laboratories, libraries, classrooms, and
other locations, while 45 percent indicated that they had
dormitory common areas with access to the campus backbone.
The NTIA report suggested that the following goals must be
addressed: (1) improvement of high-speed connectivity rates;
(2) a dramatic increase in student computer ownership; (3)
improvement of HBCUs' 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
tribal colleges have some degree of T-1 access, but most only
have fractional T-1 access. In addition, the NTIA report found
that tribal colleges struggle to hire and maintain computer
technicians, offering salaries at half of the industry
averages.
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 represent approximately 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, and 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. 432 was introduced on February 17, 2005, by Senator Allen.
Senators McCain, Hutchison, Lott, Talent, Warner, Grassley,
Graham, Thune, Santorum, Burns, Pryor, Lautenberg, and Lincoln
are co-sponsors of the legislation.
On April 14, 2005, the Committee met in open executive
session and, by a voice vote, ordered S. 432 reported without
amendment.
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, April 27, 2005.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
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. 432, the Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Act of 2005.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mike Waters.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director.
Enclosure.
S. 432--Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Act of 2005
Summary: S. 432 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 capability and
infrastructure related to digital and wireless technologies.
The bill would authorize the appropriation of $250 million a
year over the 2006-2010 period for this program and would
require grant recipients to provide matching funds under
certain conditions.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 432 would cost $823 million over
the 2006-2010 period. CBO estimates that enacting this bill
would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.
S. 432 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. 432 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 millions of
dollars--
---------------------------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level............. 250 250 250 250 250
Estimated Outlays............... 30 130 200 228 235
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental and private sector impact: S. 432
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. The bill would benefit eligible institutions
of higher education by authorizing $250 million per year, for
fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to strengthen their capacity to
provide instruction in digital network technologies. To the
extent that public institutions apply for and receive these
grants, any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would
result from complying with the conditions of such grants.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Michael Waters; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro; Impact on
the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
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
This section would set forth the short title, the ``Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Opportunity Act of
2005.''
Section 2. Establishment of office
This section would establish an office at the NSF that would
be called the ``Office of Digital and Wireless Network
Technology'' (Office) to carry out this Act. The Office would
have two purposes: (1) to strengthen the ability of MSIs to
provide capacity for instruction in digital and wireless
network technologies; and (2) to strengthen the national
digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing national
investment in telecommunications and technology infrastructure
at MSIs.
Section 3. Activities supported
This section would set forth the specific activities that may
be supported via a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement
under the digital network technologies program, including--
(1) acquiring equipment, instrumentation, networking
capability, hardware and software, digital network
technology, wireless technology, and infrastructure;
(2) developing and providing educational services,
including faculty development, to prepare students or
faculty seeking a degree or certificate;
(3) providing teacher education, library and media
specialist training, and preschool and teacher aid
certification to individuals seeking to acquire or
enhance technology skills in order to use technology in
the classroom or instructional process;
(4) implementing joint projects to provide education
regarding technology in the classroom with a State or
State education agency, local education agency,
community-based organization, national non-profit
organization, or business;
(5) providing leadership development to those with
institutional responsibility for technology education;
(6) providing capacity-building technical assistance
to eligible institutions through technical assistance
workshops, distance learning, new technologies, and
other technological applications;
(7) fostering the use of information communications
technology to increase scientific, mathematical,
engineering, and technology instruction and research;
and
(8) developing proposals to be submitted under this
Act and to develop strategic plans for information
technology investments.
Section 4. Application and review procedure
Subsection (a) would require that to be eligible to receive a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this Act, an
MSI would submit an application to the Director at such time,
in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the
Director may reasonably require. The Director, in consultation
with the advisory council established under subsection (b),
would establish a procedure by which to accept such
applications and publish an announcement of such procedure,
including a statement regarding the availability of funds, in
the Federal Register.
Subsection (b) would require the Director to establish an
advisory council to advise the Director on the best approaches
for involving MSIs in the program activities described in
section 3. In selecting the members of the advisory council,
the Director would be authorized to 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 MSIs and technology issues.
Subsection (c) would require that MSI award recipients
provide the Office with any relevant institutional statistical
or demographic data requested by the Office.
Subsection (d) would require the Director to convene an
annual meeting of MSI award recipients for the purposes of
fostering collaboration and capacity-building activities among
MSIs, and disseminating information and ideas generated by such
meetings.
Section 5. Matching requirement
This section would require an applicant MSI to commit to non-
Federal cost sharing (directly or through donations from public
or private entities) in the amount of the lesser of 25 percent
or $500,000. This cost sharing would be waived for any
institution or consortium with an endowment of less than $50
million.
Section 6. Limitations
This section would make an institution that receives a grant
that exceeds $2,500,000 ineligible to receive another grant
until all other eligible institutions that have applied to the
program receive a grant under the Act. It also requires each
grant to be administered by an eligible institution.
Section 7. Annual report and evaluation
Subsection (a) would require MSI award recipients to provide
an annual report to the Director on its use of the grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement.
Subsection (b) would require the Director, in consultation
with the Secretary of Education, to (1) review the annual
reports as required by subsection (a); and (2) evaluate the
program on the basis of such reports every two years.
Subsection (c) would require that, in the program evaluation,
the Director describe the activities undertaken by those
institutions and assess the short-range and long-range impact
of activities carried out under the grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement on the students, faculty, and staff of
the institutions.
Subsection (d) would require the Director to submit a report
to the Congress based on the program evaluation, which 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 eligible institutions, using the
meaning of the terms as defined by the Higher Education Act of
1965, as ``HBCU and consortia thereof; HSI; tribally controlled
colleges or universities; Alaska native-serving institutions;
and native Hawaiian-serving institutions.'' In addition, any
institution determined by the NSF Director, in consultation
with the Secretary of Education, to have enrolled a substantial
number of minority, low-income students during the previous
academic year who received assistance under subpart I of part A
of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 for that year,
would be eligible. The Director is NSF's Director, and minority
business includes HUBZone small business concerns as defined in
section 3(p) of the Small Business Act.
Section 9. Authorization of appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations of $250 million
for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out this
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.