[Senate Report 110-257]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress
2d Session SENATE Report
110-257
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 557
MAX CLELAND MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 1650
January 8, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 19, 2007
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred tenth congress
second session
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
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 JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS CARPER, Delaware JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
Margaret Cummisky, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lila Helms, Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
Jean Toal Eisen, Senior Advisor and Deputy Policy Director
Christine Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Paul J. Nagle, Republican Chief Counsel
Mimi Braniff, Republican Deputy Chief Counsel
Calendar No. 557
110th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 110-257
======================================================================
MAX CLELAND MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT
_______
January 8, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 19, 2007
_______
Mr. Inouye, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 1650]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 1650) 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 is to establish a $250 million per
year grant program within the Department of Commerce (DOC) from
fiscal years 2008 through 2012 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 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 and infrastructure. These institutions also would be
able to develop and provide educational services, including
faculty development, related to science, mathematics,
engineering, or technology. MSIs could use the funds to offer
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
Secretary of the DOC, 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 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 DOC's 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. An assessment instrument was sent to
all 118 HBCUs; 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.
Fifty percent of reporting institutions had access to T-3
lines, which offer greater capacity, though only three
institutions were using T-3 connections. Forty-three percent of
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 Internet service 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, and there is only minimal
use of group software indicating limited use of intranets, or
other Internet-based collaboration. 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. Seventy-six percent of the responding
schools estimated that less than one of every four of their
students owned a computer; therefore, over 75 percent of
students attending HBCUs must rely on the universities to
provide computers to access the Internet, World Wide Web, or
other network. In the face of this need, only 50 percent of the
responding HBCUs provide students access to these networks at
multiple campus locations, and only 45 percent provide access
to the campus backbone in dormitory common areas.
The NTIA report suggested the following goals: (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 the industry average.
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. In 2004, Hispanics composed 5 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. 1650 was introduced on June 19, 2007, by Senator Kerry.
Senators Stevens, Warner, Pryor, Smith, Boxer, Lott, and Webb
are co-sponsors of the legislation. On June 27, 2007, the
Committee met in an open executive session and, by voice vote,
ordered S. 1650 reported with an amendment.
Previously, the bill was introduced in the 109th Congress as
S. 432, which was sponsored by Senator Allen, and passed by the
Senate without amendment by unanimous consent. In the 108th
Congress, the Committee reported S. 196, which was passed by
the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0. S. 196 was also sponsored by
Senator Allen. The Committee initially considered and reported
this legislation in the 107th Congress, when Senator Cleland
sponsored S. 414, the NTIA Digital Network Technology Program
Act.
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, July 11, 2007.
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
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. 1650, the Max
Cleland Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag, Director.
Enclosure.
S. 1650--Max Cleland Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act
Summary: S. 1650 would create a new grant program at the
Department of Commerce (DOC) for educational institutions that
serve minority students. Eligible institutions would use the
funds to acquire digital and wireless technologies and to
increase instructional capacity in the areas of science,
mathematics, and technology. The bill would authorize the
appropriation of $250 million per year over the 2008-2012
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. 1650 would cost $823 million
over the 2008-2012 period. CBO estimates that enacting this
bill would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.
S. 1650 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA);
any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result
from complying with conditions of federal assistance.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1650 is shown in the following table.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted
near the end of 2007, that the authorized amounts will be
appropriated near the start of the fiscal year, and that
outlays will occur at rates similar to other DOC grant
programs. The costs of this legislation fall within budget
function 370 (commerce and housing credit).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of
dollars--
---------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 1650
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. The bill would benefit public institutions of
higher education by authorizing $250 million per year, for
fiscal years 2008 through 2012, to strengthen their capacity to
provide instruction in digital network technologies. Any costs
they might incur would result from complying with conditions of
federal assistance.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susan Willie; Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact
on the Private Sector: Justin Hall.
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 the DOC any relevant institutional statistical or
demographic data as requested by the DOC. Each award recipient
would be required to submit an annual report to the Secretary
of the Department of Commerce detailing its use of funding. The
Secretary 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 sets forth the short title of the bill as the
``Max Cleland Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act.''
Section 2. Establishment of office
This section would establish an office at the DOC 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 eligible
institutions 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 eligible institutions.
Section 3. Activities supported
This section would set forth that a grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement under this Act may be used to--
(1) acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking
capability, hardware and software, digital network
technology, wireless technology, and infrastructure;
(2) develop and providing educational services,
including faculty development, related to science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology;
(3) provide teacher education, library and media
specialist training, and preschool and teacher aid
certification to individuals who seek to acquire or
enhance technology skills in order to use technology in
the classroom or instructional process;
(4) implement joint projects and consortia 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, including minority
businesses;
(5) provide professional development in science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology to
administrators and faculty of eligible institutions
with institutional responsibility for technology
education;
(6) provide capacity-building technical assistance to
eligible institutions through remote technical support,
technical assistance workshops, distance learning, new
technologies, and other technological applications;
(7) foster the use of information communications
technology to increase scientific, mathematical,
engineering, and technology instruction and research;
and
(8) develop proposals and develop strategic plans for
information technology investments.
Section 4. Application and review procedure
This section would establish an application and review
process. Subsection (a) would require an eligible institution
to submit an application to the DOC Secretary in order to
receive a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement. The
Secretary, in consultation with the advisory council
established under subsection (b), would establish application
acceptance procedures and publish grant notifications and
statements regarding the fund availability.
Subsection (b) would require the Secretary to establish an
advisory council for advising the Secretary on the best
approaches for involving eligible institutions.
Subsection (c) would require an institution receiving a
grant, contract or cooperative agreement to provide relevant
institutional statistical or demographic data to the Office.
Subsection (d) would require the Secretary to convene an
annual meeting of eligible institutions that receive support
under this program to foster collaboration and capacity-
building activities among eligible institutions and to
disseminate information and ideas generated by such meetings.
Section 5. Matching requirement
This section would require that institutions awarded a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement make available the lesser of
25 percent of the amount of the non-Federal award or $500,000.
The Secretary would be required to waive the matching
requirement for any institution with no endowment, or an
endowment worth less than $50,000,000.
Section 6. Limitations
This section would prohibit an eligible institution with a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this Act of
more than $2,500,000 from receiving another grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement unless every other eligible institution
that has applied for a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement has received a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement.
Section 7. Annual report and evaluation
This section would require each institution awarded a grant,
contract, or cooperative agreement, to submit an annual report
to the Secretary detailing its use of the funding. Also, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Education,
would be required to review the reports and evaluate the
program every two years. Finally, the Secretary would submit a
report, including recommendations, to Congress based on the
evaluation.
Section 8. Definitions
This section would define key terms in this Act.
Section 9. Authorization of appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations of $250 million
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 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.