House Report 108-789 - MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2003

[House Report 108-789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

108th Congress Rept. 108-789
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1

======================================================================

MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2003

_______

November 19, 2004.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Boehlert, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 2801]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 2801) to establish a digital and wireless network
technology program, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS

Page
I. Amendment.......................................................2
II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................5
III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................6
IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................7
V. Committee Actions...............................................8
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................8
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section)..............9
VIII. Committee Views................................................10
IX. Cost Estimate..................................................13
X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................13
XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........15
XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............15
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........15
XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................15
XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................15
XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................15
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........16
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........16

XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................20
XX. Minority Views.................................................21
XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................23

Amendment

The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Minority Serving Institution Digital
and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

Section 5 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980
(15 U.S.C. 3704) is amended by inserting the following after subsection
(f):
``(g) Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary, shall establish a Minority Serving Institution
Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Program to assist
eligible institutions in acquiring, and augmenting their use
of, digital and wireless networking technologies to improve the
quality and delivery of educational services at eligible
institutions.
``(2) Authorized activities.--An eligible institution may use
a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract awarded under this
subsection--
``(A) to acquire equipment, instrumentation,
networking capability, hardware and software, digital
network technology, wireless technology, and
infrastructure to further the objective of the Program
described in paragraph (1);
``(B) to develop and provide training, education, and
professional development programs, including faculty
development, to increase the use of, and usefulness of,
digital and wireless networking technology;
``(C) to provide teacher education, including the
provision of preservice teacher training and in-service
professional development at eligible institutions,
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
digital and wireless networking technology in the
classroom or instructional process, including
instruction in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology subjects;
``(D) to obtain capacity-building technical
assistance, including through remote technical support,
technical assistance workshops, and distance learning
services; and
``(E) to foster the use of digital and wireless
networking technology to improve research and
education, including scientific, mathematics,
engineering, and technology instruction.
``(3) Application and review procedures.--
``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant,
cooperative agreement, or contract under this
subsection, an eligible institution shall submit an
application to the Under Secretary at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the
Under Secretary may require. Such application, at a
minimum, shall include a description of how the funds
will be used, including a description of any digital
and wireless networking technology to be acquired, and
a description of how the institution will ensure that
digital and wireless networking will be made accessible
to, and employed by, students, faculty, and
administrators. The Under Secretary, consistent with
subparagraph (C) and in consultation with the advisory
council established under subparagraph (B), shall
establish procedures to review such applications. The
Under Secretary shall publish the application
requirements and review criteria in the Federal
Register, along with a statement describing the
availability of funds.
``(B) Advisory council.--The Under Secretary shall
establish an advisory council to advise the Under
Secretary on the best approaches to encourage maximum
participation by eligible institutions in the program
established under paragraph (1), and on the procedures
to review proposals submitted to theprogram. In
selecting the members of the advisory council, the Under Secretary
shall consult with representatives of appropriate organizations,
including representatives of eligible institutions, to ensure that the
membership of the advisory council includes representatives of minority
businesses and eligible institution communities. The Under Secretary
shall also consult with experts in digital and wireless networking
technology to ensure that such expertise is represented on the advisory
council.
``(C) Review panels.--Each application submitted
under this subsection by an eligible institution shall
be reviewed by a panel of individuals selected by the
Under Secretary to judge the quality and merit of the
proposal, including the extent to which the eligible
institution can effectively and successfully utilize
the proposed grant, cooperative agreement, or contract
to carry out the program described in paragraph (1).
The Under Secretary shall ensure that the review panels
include representatives of minority serving
institutions and others who are knowledgeable about
eligible institutions and technology issues. The Under
Secretary shall ensure that no individual assigned
under this subsection to review any application has a
conflict of interest with regard to that application.
The Under Secretary shall take into consideration the
recommendations of the review panel in determining
whether to award a grant, cooperative agreement, or
contract to an eligible institution.
``(D) Information dissemination.--The Under Secretary
shall convene an annual meeting of eligible
institutions receiving grants, cooperative agreements,
or contracts under this subsection to foster
collaboration and capacity-building activities among
eligible institutions.
``(E) Matching requirement.--The Under Secretary may
not award a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract
to an eligible institution under this subsection unless
such institution agrees that, with respect to the costs
incurred by the institution in carrying out the program
for which the grant, cooperative agreement, or contract
was awarded, such institution shall make available,
directly, or through donations from public or private
entities, non-Federal contributions in an amount equal
to one-quarter of the grant, cooperative agreement, or
contract awarded by the Under Secretary, or$500,000,
whichever is the lesser amount. The Under Secretary shall waive the
matching requirement for any institution or consortium with no
endowment, or an endowment that has a current dollar value lower than
$50,000,000.
``(F) Awards.--
``(i) Limitation.--An eligible institution
that receives a grant, cooperative agreement,
or contract under this subsection that exceeds
$2,500,000 shall not be eligible to receive
another grant, cooperative agreement, or
contract.
``(ii) Consortia.--Grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts may only be awarded
to eligible institutions. Eligible institutions
may seek funding under this subsection for
consortia which may include other eligible
institutions, a State or a State education
agency, local education agencies, institutions
of higher education, community-based
organizations, national nonprofit
organizations, or businesses, including
minority businesses.
``(iii) Planning grants.--The Under Secretary
may provide funds to develop strategic plans to
implement such grants, cooperative agreements,
or contracts.
``(iv) Institutional diversity.--In awarding
grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts
to eligible institutions, the Under Secretary
shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that
awards are made to all types of institutions
eligible for assistance under this subsection.
``(v) Need.--In awarding funds under this
subsection, the Under Secretary shall give
priority to the institution with the greatest
demonstrated need for assistance.
``(G) Annual report and evaluation.--
``(i) Annual report required from
recipients.--Each institution that receives a
grant, cooperative agreement, or contract
awarded under this subsection shall provide an
annual report to the Under Secretary on its use
of the grant, cooperative agreement, or
contract.
``(ii) Independent assessment.--Not later
than 6 months after the date of enactment of
this subsection, the Under Secretary shall
enter into a contract with the National Academy
of Public Administration to conduct periodic
assessments of the program. The Assessments
shall be conducted once every 3 years during
the 10-year period following the enactment of
this subsection. The assessments shall include
an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
program in improving the education and training
of students, faculty and staff at eligible
institutions that have been awarded grants,
cooperative agreements, or contracts under the
program; an evaluation of the effectiveness of
the program in improving access to, and
familiarity with, digital and wireless
networking technology for students, faculty,
and staff at all eligible institutions; an
evaluation of the procedures established under
paragraph (3)(A); and recommendations for
improving theprogram, including recommendations
concerning the continuing need for Federal support. In carrying out its
assessments, the National Academy of Public Administration shall review
the reports submitted to the Under Secretary under clause (i).
``(iii) Report to congress.--Upon completion
of each independent assessment carried out
under clause (ii), the Under Secretary shall
transmit the assessment to Congress along with
a summary of the Under Secretary's plans, if
any, to implement the recommendations of the
National Academy of Public Administration.
``(H) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(i) Digital and wireless networking
technology.--The term `digital and wireless
networking technology' means computer and
communications equipment and software that
facilitates the transmission of information in
a digital format.
``(ii) Eligible institution.--The term
`eligible institution' means an institution
that is--
``(I) a historically Black college or
university that is a part B
institution, as defined in section
322(2) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)), an
institution described in section
326(e)(1)(A), (B), or (C) of that Act
(20 U.S.C. 1063b(e)(1)(A), (B), or
(C)), or a consortium of institutions
described in this subparagraph;
``(II) a Hispanic-serving
institution, as defined in section
502(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5));
``(III) a tribally controlled college
or university, as defined in section
316(b)(3) of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)(3));
``(IV) an Alaska Native-serving
institution under section 317(b) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059d(b));
``(V) a Native Hawaiian-serving
institution under section 317(b) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059d(b)); or
``(VI) an institution of higher
education (as defined in section 365 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1067k)) with an enrollment of
needy students (as defined in section
312(d) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1058(d)).
``(iii) Institution of higher education.--The
term `institution of higher education' has the
meaning given the term in section 101 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
``(iv) Local educational agency.--The term
`local educational agency' has the meaning
given the term in section 9101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 7801).
``(v) Minority business.--The term `minority
business' includes HUBZone small business
concerns (as defined in section 3(p) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)).
``(vi) Minority individual.--The term
`minority individual' means an American Indian,
Alaskan Native, Black (not of Hispanic origin),
Hispanic (including persons of Mexican, Puerto
Rican, Cuban and Central or South American
origin), or Pacific Islander individual.
``(vii) State.--The term `State' has the
meaning given the term in section 9101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 7801).
``(viii) State educational agency.--The term
`State educational agency' has the meaning
given the term in section 9101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 7801).''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Technology
Administration of the Department of Commerce to carry out section 5(g)
of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980--
(1) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(2) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(3) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(4) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(5) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

SEC. 4. ACHIEVEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN SCIENTISTS,
MATHEMATICIANS, AND INVENTORS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the historical experience of Americans of African descent
began more than 5,000 years B.C.E., with notable scientists,
mathematicians, and inventors such as Imhotep, who is
recognized by contemporary historians as the first architect, a
pioneer in mathematics, an eminent sage and patron of scribes,
a respected leader among early Egyptian and Greek
civilizations, builder of the first pyramid, and the physician
upon whose knowledge and teachings about human anatomy and the
functions of the major organs modern medicine rests;
(2) African-Americans have earned an undeniable role in the
development of the culture of this Nation, contributing major
inventions and scientific discoveries, among other things, that
enrich the quality of life for all mankind;
(3) the scientific and technological contributions of
African-Americans to the world are largely absent from history
books;
(4) the ethos of this rich and proud people, descendants of
kings and queens, has been passed down to generations through
whispered tales by a remnant of African-American ancestors who
understood the relationship between honor, respect, and
appreciation of heritage and culture, and the vision and
success of future generations;
(5) it is with this spirit that we recognize and celebrate
the creative genius and contributions of Annie Easley, Sharon
J. Barnes, Thomas L. Jennings, Dr. Benjamin S. Carson, David
Blackwell, David N. Crosthwait, Elijah McCoy, Clarence A.
Ellis, Phillip Emeagwali, Charles R. Drew, Sarah E. Goode,
Granville T. Woods, Lewis H. Latimer, Meredith C. Gourdine,
Ernest E. Just, Evelyn Boyd Granville, Norbert Rillieux, Mae C.
Jemison, George Carruthers, Garret A. Morgan, J. Ernest
Wilkins, Sarah Boone, Booker T. Washington, and numerous other
African-Americans whose great achievements evidence a vast pool
of untapped intellect;
(6) education has been the social, economic, and political
gatekeeper for African-Americans, and will become increasingly
so for students of color desiring to participate fully in the
scientific and technological innovations of the new millennium;
(7) although progress has been made in the educational
attainment of African-Americans, they remain less likely than
whites and Asians to graduate from high school, enroll in
college, graduate from college, and pursue graduate and
professional degrees;
(8) African-Americans represent approximately 12 percent of
the population in the United States, but only 3 percent of the
total science and engineering labor force, less than 1 percent
of scientists and engineers, 2 percent of doctoral scientists
and engineers, and 1 quarter of 1 percent of computer
scientists;
(9) if the declining number and percentage of African-
American high school and college students choosing careers that
require undergraduate and advanced degrees in science and
mathematics continues unabated, the serious shortage of
African-American scientists, mathematicians, physicians,
computer scientists, and inventors would cause serious harm to
the Nation's leadership in scientific research;
(10) the dreams and aspirations of too many African-American
youth have withered and must be revitalized with the message
that they descend from a proud and noble people who expected
and settled for nothing less than excellence in every endeavor,
and whose greatness has left an indelible mark on the world;
(11) it is vital that the citizens of this Nation, especially
young African-Americans, realize and appreciate the important
contributions of their ancestors and contemporaries to past and
present society; and
(12) to fulfill the Nation's commitment to equal opportunity
and prosperity for every citizen, it is imperative that
African-American youth and people of all races and ages realize
that the fields of science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology are available and accessible to everyone.
(b) Acknowledgement and Recognition.--The Congress acknowledges and
recognizes the significant achievements and contributions of African-
American scientists, mathematicians, and inventors.

II. Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the bill is to assist minority-serving
institutions in acquiring, and augmenting their use of, digital
and wireless networking technologies to improve the quality and
delivery of educational services at their institutions.

III. Background and Need for the Legislation

Developing an educated and technologically literate
workforce is an important part of our efforts to maintain our
Nation's preeminence in an increasingly competitive,
information-based, global economy. Whether technology should be
used in schools is no longer the issue. Rather the current
emphasis is on ensuring that technology is available and used
effectively to create new opportunities in school and at work.
Already, more than half of all workers--from office workers to
auto mechanics--use a computer on the job, and that number is
expected to grow in the near future. If we are to tap the full
potential of this country and its people, we must ensure that
all Americans are technically proficient and prepared for the
21st century workforce.
Unfortunately, too many Americans--and minorities in
particular--have been raised in an environment without a
computer in the home, attended poor schools that were neither
wired nor equipped with 21st century technology, and have been
taught by educators who may not have had previous experience
with computers. Despite a significant federal investment in
education technology at the elementary and secondary school
levels, a large number of low-income, minority students still
have their first exposure to computers and the Internet when
they arrive on the college campus.
The U.S. Department of Commerce first documented the
disparity between information ``haves'' and information ``have-
nots''--the so-called ``digital divide''--in 1995. More
recently, the Department issued a July 2000 report, entitled
Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, which found
that African-Americans, Hispanics, and other traditional
``have-not'' groups were experiencing an access disparity that
persisted and, in some cases, widened in recent years. Whites
were more likely to have access to the Internet from home than
African-Americans or Hispanics from any location, with African-
American and Hispanic households approximately one-third as
likely as a household of Asian/Pacific Islander descent to have
Internet access and roughly two-fifths as likely as white
households. The 2000 report also found that the gap appeared to
be growing wider, with the digital divide increasing slightly
for African-Americans and Hispanics from their December 1998
rates.
The digital divide series prompted the National Association
for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), a non-profit
public policy and advocacy group, to assess the computing
resources, networking and connectivity of its member
universities. Of NAFEO's 118 member institutions, 80
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) provided
input into the study, known as the HBCU Technology Assessment
Study. Funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the study
found that 88 percent of HBCUs had access to T-1 lines--
approximately 1.5 million bits per second (Mbs)--the minimum
standard for connectivity and generally considered insufficient
to support capabilities beyond Internet and World Wide Web
connectivity for an institution of any size. Larger bandwidth,
for faster connections and more Web-based applications, was
available to half of reporting institutions.
The larger problem turned out not to be the availability of
networking capacity, but rather its use. Only 7.5 percent
reported using the high-speed lines even though they were
available at half the institutions. Similarly, of the 29
percent of HBCUs with access to wireless technology, only 43
percent were using it. Although it was not clear why many HBCUs
weren't using the high-speed connections available to them,
some speculated that it had to do with finances, lack of
strategic planning, faculty motivation, and training. The study
also found that none of the participating HBCUs required
undergraduate students to own computers and only 15 percent
recommended student computer ownership. As a result, the vast
majority of HBCU students relied on institutional resources to
connect to the Internet, World Wide Web or other networks, yet
only 50 percent of the respondents reported providing ``on-
demand'' student access to computing resources.
Although the report did not examine the need for an
improved technology infrastructure at other minority-serving
institutions (MSIs), anecdotal information indicates that the
problems at other MSIs mirror those at the HBCUs.
MSIs play a unique role in the education of our diverse
American workforce. According to recent reports, 21 percent of
all college degrees and certificates awarded to African-
American, American Indian and Hispanic students are conferred
by MSIs. MSIs also help underrepresented students succeed in
all disciplines, and science, mathematics, and engineering in
particular. For example, of African-Americans earning bachelor
degrees in science, math, engineering or technology fields in
1996, 31 percent received them at HBCUs. Similarly, Hispanic-
Serving Institutions produced 20 percent of all science, math,
engineering or technology bachelor's degrees awarded to
Hispanics in 1996.
MSIs have special expertise in serving their communities,
which include large numbers of low-income or first-generation
college students. Unlike other, larger institutions of higher
education, however, MSIs typically have small or nonexistent
endowments and few wealthy alumni. As a result, the ability to
finance the acquisition and maintenance of the technology that
will prepare these students for the workforce is especially
challenging for many MSIs.
This Act seeks to address the concerns above and provides
funding to assist minority-serving institutions in acquiring,
and augmenting their use of, digital and wireless networking
technologies to improve the quality and delivery of educational
services at their institutions. In particular, the Act is
focused on funding activities that will improve the technology
skills of students, faculty and administrators and narrow the
disparity in access to technology.

IV. Hearing Summary

On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Research of
the Committee on Science held a hearing to examine the unmet
technology infrastructure needs of minority-serving
institutions (MSIs). Witnesses provided comments on and made
recommendations foradditions to H.R. 2183, the Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003,
introduced by Representative J. Randy Forbes. The Subcommittee received
testimony from Senator George Allen, sponsor of S. 196, the Senate
companion to H.R. 2183, and Representatives Edolphus Towns, sponsor of
H.R. 2272, similar bipartisan legislation introduced in the House of
Representatives. The Subcommittee also heard testimony from
representatives of MSIs and associations of such institutions,
including the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, and
the United Negro College Fund. These witnesses discussed the technology
infrastructure needs at MSIs as well as efforts by such institutions to
address their technology needs. Finally, the Subcommittee heard from
the National Science Foundation (NSF) Director. Dr. Rita Colwell
described her agency's efforts to expand access to women and minorities
in science, mathematics, engineering and technology education and
research and announced a new initiative to provide outreach to MSIs.
She also expressed opposition to the placement of the program in the
bill at NSF.

V. Committee Actions

On July 21, 2003, Representatives J. Randy Forbes and
Edolphus Towns reintroduced the modified text of H.R. 2183 as
H.R. 2801, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003, a bill to build
the technology infrastructure at MSIs.
The Full Committee on Science met on July 22, 2003 to
consider the bill. A clarifying amendment, which provided that
instruction in science, mathematics, engineering and technology
subjects should be among those in which educators are able to
receive training in the use of technology, was offered by
Chairman Boehlert. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. An
amendment was offered by Ms. Woolsey, on behalf of Ms. Johnson,
to express the Sense of the Congress on the contributions of
African American mathematicians, scientists and inventors. The
amendment was adopted by voice vote. An amendment was offered
by Mr. Honda to create a new category of minority institutions
for Asian Americans. By unanimous consent, Mr. Honda withdrew
the amendment. Mr. Hall moved that the Committee favorably
report the bill, H.R. 2801, as amended, with the recommendation
that the bill as amended do pass, that the staff be instructed
to make technical and conforming changes to the bill as amended
and prepare the legislative report, and that the Chairman take
all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for
consideration. With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to
by voice vote.

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

Establishes the Minority Serving Institution
Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Program within the
Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce to
assist MSIs in acquiring and augmenting their use of networking
and information technology. Funds may be used to acquire
equipment; develop and provide training, education and
professional development programs related to the use of
technology; provide teacher education, including pre-service
and in-service professional development, library and media
specialist training and pre-school and teacher aid
certification in technology; obtain technical assistance; and
foster the use of technology to improve research and education.
Establishes an Advisory Council, composed of
representatives of MSIs, minority businesses and others with
expertise in technology, to help encourage maximum
participation among eligible institutions in the program.
Establishes review panels, selected by the Under
Secretary, with, among others, representatives of MSIs and
others who are knowledgeable about MSIs and technology issues,
to judge the quality and merit of the proposals, including the
extent to which the institution can effectively use the funds.
Requires the Under Secretary to consider the recommendations of
a review panel in determining whether to award or deny funds.
Requires matching funds of 25 percent or $500,000,
whichever is less, for institutions with endowments of more
than $50,000,000. Requires awards to be granted on a priority
basis to those with a demonstrated need for assistance and, to
the extent practicable, to all types of institutions eligible
for assistance.
Requires institutions to report annually to the
Under Secretary on their use of the funds.
Requires the Under Secretary to contract with the
National Academy of Public Administration to conduct an
independent assessment once every three years on the
effectiveness of the program in improving the education and
training as well as access to and familiarity with technology
for students, faculty and staff. Also requires recommendations
on the continuing need for federal support. Upon completion,
requires the results of the independent assessment to be
transmitted to the Congress.
Authorizes $250 million for fiscal year 2004 and
all subsequent years through fiscal year 2008.

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section)

Section 1. Short title

The ``Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act.''

Section 2. Establishment of program

Establishes a Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Program within the Technology
Administration of the Department of Commerce to assist eligible
institutions in acquiring, and augmenting the use of, digital
and wireless networking technologies to improve the quality and
delivery of educational services at minority-serving
institutions (MSIs).
Funds may be used to (1) acquire equipment,
instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software,
digital network technology, wireless technology,
andinfrastructure; (2) develop and provide digital and wireless
networking technology training, education and professional development;
(3) acquire capacity-building technical assistance through remote
technical support, workshops, and distance learning services; and (4)
foster the use of digital and wireless networking technology to improve
research and education.
Requires applicants to describe any technology to be
acquired and how the applicant will ensure that the technology
will be made available to students, faculty and administrators.
Requires the Under Secretary, consistent with the
recommendations of a review panel and in consultation with the
advisory panel, to establish other application requirements.
Requires the establishment of an advisory council, which
must include representatives of minority institutions, minority
businesses and technology experts, to help the Under Secretary
encourage maximum participation by eligible institutions and to
provide advice on the procedures to review applications.
Requires the establishment of review panels, which must include
representatives of MSIs and others who are knowledgeable about
MSIs and technology issues, to judge the quality and merit of
proposals and the extent to which they can effectively and
successfully utilize the funds. Requires the Under Secretary to
take into consideration the recommendations of a review panel
in awarding grants. Requires the Under Secretary to convene an
annual meeting of MSIs receiving grants to foster collaboration
and capacity building.
Requires a non-federal match equal to 25 percent of the
grant or $500,000, whichever is less, for institutions with an
endowment of more than $50,000,000. Limits institutions that
receive grants that exceed $2,500,000 from receiving another
grant during the authorization.
Allows MSIs to seek funds as part of a consortium, but
requires grants to be awarded to the MSIs only. Allows grants
for developing strategic plans. Requires a priority in funding
for institutions with the greatest need for assistance and
requires that awards are made to all types of eligible
institutions.
Requires institutions to report annually to the Under
Secretary on their use of the funds. Requires the Under
Secretary to contract with the National Academy of Public
Administration to conduct an independent assessment once every
three years on the effectiveness of the program in improving
education and training, as well as access to, and familiarity
with technology for students, faculty and staff. Also requires
recommendations on the continuing need for federal support.
Upon completion, requires the results of the independent
assessment to be transmitted to the Congress.
Defines terms.

Section 3. Authorization of appropriations

Authorizes $250 million for fiscal year 2004 and each year
through fiscal year 2008.

VIII. Committee Views

The Committee believes that our continued economic growth
and competitiveness depend in large part on advances in science
and technology and our ability to produce a technologically
sophisticated workforce. Yet the Committee has concluded that,
despite the growing federal investment in programs designed to
strengthen MSIs, the disparity in access to, and use of,
technology between MSIs and other institutions of higher
education limits the ability of MSIs to graduate technically
literate students and contribute positively to the fields of
science, mathematics, engineering and technology.
The program authorized by this Act is designed not only to
acquire technology but also to ensure that the new technology
is used to improve education. In addition, this Act provides
opportunities for MSIs to determine the best strategies to
build and maintain their technology infrastructures through
annual meetings with other grantees.
As initially conceived, this program was placed at the
National Science Foundation (NSF). The Committee strongly
opposed that placement because the mission of the agency does
not include the acquisition of technology that is unrelated to
scientific research. Moreover, the Committee was also concerned
that the placement of the program at NSF would put other
education and outreach programs at risk, including those
designed to increase the participation of women and minorities
in the sciences. The Committee believes placement of the
program within the Technology Administration at the Department
of Commerce, as reflected in H.R. 2801, as amended, is a better
fit.
While the Committee believes that the Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Act of 2003 will
help provide important seed money to address the technology
needs of MSIs, the legislation itself is not a ``silver
bullet.'' The Committee recognizes that the effective use of
technology in educational settings is expensive. It will take a
coordinated effort--one that involves institutions,
governments, and the private sector--to motivate and train more
students to bridge the technology divide. To that end, the
Committee urges MSIs to adopt and implement strategies that
have been successful--such as working in collaboration with
businesses and other institutions of higher education--to use
its technology resources efficiently and maintain its
infrastructure in an appropriate manner. For that reason, the
Committee included the development of a long-term strategic
plan for the acquisition and use of technology as an allowable
use of funds under this program and urges MSIs to take
advantage of this provision to ensure that limited resources
are used effectively.
The Committee anticipates that many MSIs receiving grants
under this program will use the funds to acquire
instrumentation, enhance infrastructure and/or strengthen
existing digital wireless networking technology at their
institutions, but expects such funds to also be used to improve
teaching and learning for students, faculty and administrators.
In particular, the Committee emphasizes the special
contribution that technology can make in strengthening academic
programs, including mathematics, science, engineering and
technology and teacher preparation, at eligible institutions.
For the purposes of the application and review procedures,
the Committee expects the Under Secretary to ensure that
members of review panels include representatives of MSIs and
others who are knowledgeable about the technology needs of the
eligible institutions. The Committee believes that the review
panels should include individuals who are conversant with the
particular mission of MSIs. In so doing, the Committee hopes to
encourage greater participation among MSIs and their
representatives on the review panel and in the program, while
guarding against conflicts of interest.
The Committee believes that the review panels serve an
important role in providing advice to the Under Secretary about
the quality and merit of an application submitted by MSIs. To
ensure that the Under Secretary receives the best possible
advice, it is the Committee's view that these panels should
include a diverse range of experts knowledgeable about both the
technology being sought and the implementation of this
technology at education institutions. For that reason, the
Committee expects the membership on these panels to include (in
addition to representatives of minority-serving institutions)
experts in information technology education and training,
hardware, networking, both in academic and industrial settings;
and Chief Information Officers from academic institutions and
industry.
The Committee requires the Under Secretary to convene an
annual meeting of grantees. It is the Committee's view that
this should serve as an opportunity not just to foster
collaboration and capacity building, as required by the
program, but also to build relationships between the Department
of Commerce and the MSI community.
With respect to the matching requirement, the Committee
urges all applicants--including those with little or no
endowment--to seek additional funds from non-Federal sources,
including business, to maximize the investment in technology
and technology education at their institution. The Committee
believes this is important to maintaining the technological
edge of the recipient institutions and to keeping faculty and
students current after the Federal contribution expires. Yet,
the Committee appreciates the financial circumstances of many
MSIs and, for that reason, waives the required match for those
with an endowment equal to or less than $50 million.
In making awards, the Committee seeks to ensure that all
eligible institutions are able to share in the Federal funding.
For that reason, the Committee limited the number of grant
funds in excess of $2.5 million that any one institution could
receive during the 5-year authorization. It is not the
Committee's intention to establish a maximum grant. Rather, the
Committee seeks to ensure that the full range of MSIs--urban
and rural, public and private, 2-year and 4-year--are able to
compete effectively for grants under this program, with
priority given to institutions with a demonstrated need for
assistance.
Because there is not sufficient data on how best to help
MSIs catch up to other institutions of higher education, the
Committee believes that accurate reporting on the use of funds
is an important requirement of the program. Therefore, each
grantee must annually report on its use of the grant, and the
Under Secretary must contract with the National Academy of
Public Administration to conduct an independent assessment of
the program. The Committee expects these reports both to inform
the efforts of MSIs and other institutions of higher education
on how best to improve access to technology and to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program in improving education and
training at MSIs.
During the full committee markup, some Committee members
expressed concern about other populations and institutions that
might also benefit from assistance under this program. The
Committee recognizes that other institutions of higher
education with unmet technology needs also serve statistically
significant numbers and percentages of minority and low-income
students and appreciates the fact that the digital divide
includes disparities in socioeconomic status and educational
attainment. For that reason, the Committee was careful to
include so called ``majority-minority institutions'', or
institutions with large low-income minority populations that
otherwise do not qualify as a HBCU, HSI, or Tribal Serving
Institution among those institutions that are eligible for
assistance under this program.
In addition, the Committee acknowledges that some Members
are interested in establishing additional categories of
minority populations, such as Asian Americans, for the purposes
of this program. While recognizing that some minority groups,
like Asian Americans, are an important part of our society, the
Committee was disinclined to include them as a new category
under this program because too little data was available on the
number of low-income Asian American students at institutions of
higher education and the types of institutions that may benefit
from this new designation. To that end, the Committee directs
the Under Secretary, in consultation with the Department of
Education, to determine the number of institutions serving
significant Asian American populations. The Committee stresses
that race is but one factor in determining the eligibility of
an institution under this Act and seeks to ensure that Federal
funds are not inappropriately targeted to otherwise wealthy,
digitally well-connected institutions.

IX. Cost Estimate

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to
the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and
is included in Section X of this report pursuant to House Rule
XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
H.R. 2801 does not contain new budget authority, credit
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R.
2801 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 25, 2003.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2801, the Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Act of 2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Melissa
Zimmerman and Jenny Lin.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Sunshine
(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
Enclosure.

H.R. 2801--Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Act of 2003

Summary: H.R. 2801 would create a new grant program for
educational institutions that serve minority students within
the Department of Commerce's (DOC's) Technology Administration.
Eligible institutions could use the funds to improve
instructional capabilities and acquire digital and wireless
communication and information technology. 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.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 2801 would cost $823 million
over the 2004-2008 period. CBO estimates that enacting this
bill would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.
H.R. 2801 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Any costs incurred by state, local, or tribal governments would
be subject to conditions of aid and thus voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 2801 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 the
outlays will occur at rates similar to those of other DOC
programs. The costs of this legislation fall within budget
function 370 (commerce and housing credit).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level...................................... 250 250 250 250 250
Estimated Outlays........................................ 30 130 200 228 235
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 2801 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. Any costs incurred by state, local, or tribal governments
would be the result of complying with federal grant conditions
and would be voluntary. The bill would primarily benefit
educational institutions--including public institutions--that
serve minorities, members of Native American Tribes, and
disadvantaged students. Assuming that approximately 65 percent
of such institutions are public or tribal institutions, H.R.
2801 would authorize grants to state, local, or tribal
governments that would total about $160 million per year.
Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO estimate: On March 18, 2003, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for S. 196, the Digital and Wireless Network
Technology Program Act of 2003, as ordered reported by the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on
March 13, 2003. The two pieces of legislation are similar, and
our cost estimates are the same.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Melissa Zimmerman and
Jenny Lin; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments:
Sarah Puro; and Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

H.R. 2801 contains no unfunded mandates.

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

The Committee on Science's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of
H.R. 2801 are to assist minority serving institutions in
acquiring, and augmenting their use of, digital and wireless
networking technologies to improve the quality and delivery of
educational services at their institutions.
The Committee requires that all of the programs authorized
under the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Networking Opportunity Act be awarded on a competitive basis.
Informed by the recommendations of a review panel, this process
is expected to ensure that funds are awarded to build the
technology infrastructure at the full range of minority serving
institutions, with a priority for demonstrated need for
assistance. While improving the technology infrastructure is a
key component of this legislation, it is imperative that this
technology be used to improve the teaching and learning of
students, faculty and administrators. In fact, all efforts to
acquire this technology should be supported with parallel
efforts to use such technology to improve the quality and
delivery of educational services at the minority serving
institutions.
Given the limited amount of data on the specific technology
needs of many minority serving institutions--and the
significant investment authorized by this program--the bill
requires all minority serving institutions receiving assistance
under this program to be subjected to a rigorous assessment and
evaluation of how the money is spent in order to collect and
disseminate information on best practices.

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 2801.

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

The functions of the advisory committee established by H.R.
2801 are not currently being nor could they be performed by one
or more agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another
existing advisory committee.

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

The Committee finds that H.R. 2801 does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or
tribal law.

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (and new matter is
printed in italic existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):

STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 1980

* * * * * * *

SEC. 5. COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Under Secretary, shall establish a Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Program to assist eligible institutions in acquiring,
and augmenting their use of, digital and wireless
networking technologies to improve the quality and
delivery of educational services at eligible
institutions.
(2) Authorized activities.--An eligible institution
may use a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract
awarded under this subsection--
(A) to acquire equipment, instrumentation,
networking capability, hardware and software,
digital network technology, wireless
technology, and infrastructure to further the
objective of the Program described in paragraph
(1);
(B) to develop and provide training,
education, and professional development
programs, including faculty development, to
increase the use of, and usefulness of, digital
and wireless networking technology;
(C) to provide teacher education, including
the provision of preservice teacher training
and in-service professional development at
eligible institutions, 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 digital and wireless networking
technology in the classroom or instructional
process, including instruction in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology
subjects;
(D) to obtain capacity-building technical
assistance, including through remote technical
support, technical assistance workshops, and
distance learning services; and
(E) to foster the use of digital and wireless
networking technology to improve research and
education, including scientific, mathematics,
engineering, and technology instruction.
(3) Application and review procedures.--
(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a
grant, cooperative agreement, or contract under
this subsection, an eligible institution shall
submit an application to the Under Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Under Secretary may require.
Such application, at a minimum, shall include a
description of how the funds will be used,
including a description of any digital and
wireless networking technology to be acquired,
and a description of how the institution will
ensure that digital and wireless networking
will be made accessible to, and employed by,
students, faculty, and administrators. The
Under Secretary, consistent with subparagraph
(C) and in consultation with the advisory
council established under subparagraph (B),
shall establish procedures to review such
applications. The Under Secretary shall publish
the application requirements and review
criteria in the Federal Register, along with a
statement describing the availability of funds.
(B) Advisory council.--The Under Secretary
shall establish an advisory council to advise
the Under Secretary on the best approaches to
encourage maximum participation by eligible
institutions in the program established under
paragraph (1), and on the procedures to review
proposals submitted to theprogram. In selecting
the members of the advisory council, the Under Secretary shall consult
with representatives of appropriate organizations, including
representatives of eligible institutions, to ensure that the membership
of the advisory council includes representatives of minority businesses
and eligible institution communities. The Under Secretary shall also
consult with experts in digital and wireless networking technology to
ensure that such expertise is represented on the advisory council.
(C) Review panels.--Each application
submitted under this subsection by an eligible
institution shall be reviewed by a panel of
individuals selected by the Under Secretary to
judge the quality and merit of the proposal,
including the extent to which the eligible
institution can effectively and successfully
utilize the proposed grant, cooperative
agreement, or contract to carry out the program
described in paragraph (1). The Under Secretary
shall ensure that the review panels include
representatives of minority serving
institutions and others who are knowledgeable
about eligible institutions and technology
issues. The Under Secretary shall ensure that
no individual assigned under this subsection to
review any application has a conflict of
interest with regard to that application. The
Under Secretary shall take into consideration
the recommendations of the review panel in
determining whether to award a grant,
cooperative agreement, or contract to an
eligible institution.
(D) Information dissemination.--The Under
Secretary shall convene an annual meeting of
eligible institutions receiving grants,
cooperative agreements, or contracts under this
subsection to foster collaboration and
capacity-building activities among eligible
institutions.
(E) Matching requirement.--The Under
Secretary may not award a grant, cooperative
agreement, or contract to an eligible
institution under this subsection unless such
institution agrees that, with respect to the
costs incurred by the institution in carrying
out the program for which the grant,
cooperative agreement, or contract was awarded,
such institution shall make available,
directly, or through donations from public or
private entities, non-Federal contributions in
an amount equal to one-quarter of the grant,
cooperative agreement, or contract awarded by
the Under Secretary, or $500,000, whichever is
the lesser amount. The Under Secretary shall
waive the matching requirement for any
institution or consortium with no endowment, or
an endowment that has a current dollar value
lower than $50,000,000.
(F) Awards.--
(i) Limitation.--An eligible
institution that receives a grant,
cooperative agreement, or contract
under this subsection that exceeds
$2,500,000 shall not be eligible to
receive another grant, cooperative
agreement, or contract.
(ii) Consortia.--Grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts may only be
awarded to eligible institutions.
Eligible institutions may seek funding
under this subsection for consortia
which may include other eligible
institutions, a State or a State
education agency, local education
agencies, institutions of higher
education, community-based
organizations, national nonprofit
organizations, or businesses, including
minority businesses.
(iii) Planning grants.--The Under
Secretary may provide funds to develop
strategic plans to implement such
grants, cooperative agreements, or
contracts.
(iv) Institutional diversity.--In
awarding grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts to eligible
institutions, the Under Secretary shall
ensure, to the extent practicable, that
awards are made to all types of
institutions eligible for assistance
under this subsection.
(v) Need.--In awarding funds under
this subsection, the Under Secretary
shall give priority to the institution
with the greatest demonstrated need for
assistance.
(G) Annual report and evaluation.--
(i) Annual report required from
recipients.--Each institution that
receives a grant, cooperative
agreement, or contract awarded under
this subsection shall provide an annual
report to the Under Secretary on its
use of the grant, cooperative
agreement, or contract.
(ii) Independent assessment.--Not
later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Under
Secretary shall enter into a contract
with the National Academy of Public
Administration to conduct periodic
assessments of the program. The
Assessments shall be conducted once
every 3 years during the 10-year period
following the enactment of this
subsection. The assessments shall
include an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the program in
improving the education and training of
students, faculty and staff at eligible
institutions that have been awarded
grants, cooperative agreements, or
contracts under the program; an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the
program in improving access to, and
familiarity with, digital and wireless
networking technology for students,
faculty, and staff at all eligible
institutions; an evaluation of the
procedures established under paragraph
(3)(A); and recommendations for
improving theprogram, including
recommendations concerning the continuing need for Federal support. In
carrying out its assessments, the National Academy of Public
Administration shall review the reports submitted to the Under
Secretary under clause (i).
(iii) Report to congress.--Upon
completion of each independent
assessment carried out under clause
(ii), the Under Secretary shall
transmit the assessment to Congress
along with a summary of the Under
Secretary's plans, if any, to implement
the recommendations of the National
Academy of Public Administration.
(H) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(i) Digital and wireless networking
technology.--The term ``digital and
wireless networking technology'' means
computer and communications equipment
and software that facilitates the
transmission of information in a
digital format.
(ii) Eligible institution.--The term
``eligible institution'' means an
institution that is--
(I) a historically Black
college or university that is a
part B institution, as defined
in section 322(2) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1061(2)), an institution
described in section
326(e)(1)(A), (B), or (C) of
that Act (20 U.S.C.
1063b(e)(1)(A), (B), or (C)),
or a consortium of institutions
described in this subparagraph;
(II) a Hispanic-serving
institution, as defined in
section 502(a)(5) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5));
(III) a tribally controlled
college or university, as
defined in section 316(b)(3) of
the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)(3));
(IV) an Alaska Native-serving
institution under section
317(b) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059d(b));
(V) a Native Hawaiian-serving
institution under section
317(b) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059d(b)); or
(VI) an institution of higher
education (as defined in
section 365 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1067k)) with an
enrollment of needy students
(as defined in section 312(d)
of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1058(d)).
(iii) Institution of higher
education.--The term ``institution of
higher education'' has the meaning
given the term in section 101 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001).
(iv) Local educational agency.--The
term ``local educational agency'' has
the meaning given the term in section
9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(v) Minority business.--The term
``minority business'' includes HUBZone
small business concerns (as defined in
section 3(p) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 632(p)).
(vi) Minority individual.--The term
``minority individual'' means an
American Indian, Alaskan Native, Black
(not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic
(including persons of Mexican, Puerto
Rican, Cuban and Central or South
American origin), or Pacific Islander
individual.
(vii) State.--The term ``State'' has
the meaning given the term in section
9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(viii) State educational agency.--The
term ``State educational agency'' has
the meaning given the term in section
9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

* * * * * * *

XIX. Committee Recommendations

On July 22, 2003, a quorum being present, the Committee on
Science favorably reported the Minority Serving Institution
Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act, by a voice
vote, and recommended its enactment.

XX. MINORITY VIEWS

We commend the Committee on Science for reporting H.R. 2801
with broad bipartisan support. This bill creates a technology
partnership between the Federal Government and America's
Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) to build a bridge across
the digital divide for this group of institutions and the
students they serve. Achieving the goals of this legislation
may be the most significant challenge facing the Nation and
these colleges and universities in the 21st century.
The Nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs), and its other MSIs offer a wealth of human resources
and the necessary talent to continue to strengthen and benefit
our country. These institutions are noted for their consistent
standards of excellence and outstanding achievements. It is a
simple fact that they produce the lion's share of minority
public school teachers, in addition to their noteworthy
production of minority scientists and engineers. Collectively
and individually, these colleges and universities are committed
to providing the highest quality education for students who
more often than not, do not have the social, educational, and
financial advantages of other college-bound populations.
As is the case with all institutions of higher education,
minority-serving institutions operate in an increasingly
competitive academic and technology-focused environment.
Campus-wide, faculty, staff and students are expected to
conduct business and engage in academic and research pursuits
using state-of-the-art facilities and technology. Too
frequently, MSIs lack the institutional resources to acquire
and provide the technology infrastructure and instrumentation
necessary to train faculty to fully integrate technology
throughout the curriculum, and to provide the highest quality
learning experiences for their students. Moreover, they also
could benefit from additional resources to train staff to
administer and maintain digital, wireless and telecommunication
systems that support the academic and day-to-day operations.
Looking at the present day and the future workforce, we
cannot underestimate the value of the development of minority
human capital to the country's overall success. Strengthening
the technology infrastructure at MSIs is critical given the
role these institutions must play in training individuals who
represent a growing percentage of our postsecondary student
population and the workforce that is required to be
technologically literate and skilled. For this reason, H.R.
2801 is all the more important in ensuring not only the future
prosperity of America, but also in raising the educational
expectations of students needing the skill sets to be
competitive to succeed in today's world.
Notwithstanding the extraordinary merit of H.R. 2801, we
are concerned by one aspect of the bill, as reported. It
specifies that the Secretary of Commerce shall establish the
Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity program by ``acting through the Under Secretary
[for Technology]''. More commonly, the agency head, in this
case the Secretary, is designated as the person authorized to
carry out a program authorized by Congress. The Secretary has
the discretion to delegate authority to administer an
authorized program. Designating a lesser department official--
whose title or position might be subsequently eliminated or
whose title may be changed--could place the program in
administrative limbo or at risk. Some might even interpret the
designation of a lesser departmental official as undermining
the significance of this important program. I will work to
modify the bill as it moves forward in the legislative process
to explicitly charge the Secretary to establish the program.

Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Sheila Jackson-Lee.

XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup

The Committee met, pursuant to other business, in room 2318
of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood D. Boehlert
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Boehlert. The next item on the docket is H.R.
2801. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Research
be discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 2801 and
ask for its immediate consideration at full Committee and,
without objection, it is so ordered.
We will now consider the bill H.R. 2801, the Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Act of 2003, and now, it is my pleasure to recognize one of the
driving forces behind this very important and significant
legislation, Mr. Forbes, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, full
access to technology has become a standard, not abundance, in
how we communicate and do our jobs every day. Right now, 60
percent of all jobs require information technology skills and
information technology jobs pay significantly higher than jobs
in non-technology-related fields, yet minority-serving
institutions often lack the basic information and digital
technology infrastructure needed to provide their students the
necessary skills and access to compete and quality for
America's best-paying jobs.
H.R. 2801 would help provide essential resources to address
the technology gap that exists at many minority-serving
institutions by providing $250 million in grants to
historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving
institutions and tribal colleges and universities.
The program would offer opportunities to these institutions
for activities such as computer acquisition, campus wiring and
technology training. Each of these activities is an important
step toward bridging the digital divide. A recent article
published in the Chronicle of Higher Education highlights the
need for this legislation. At the University of Richmond, there
are 62 people to assist with the development, use and
maintenance of campus information technology. At Virginia
Union, an historically black college with half the enrollment
of the University of Richmond, there is a computing staff of
only 4 for the entire school. At Virginia State University,
which is located in my district, only 10 percent of the
students own computers, while 96 percent of the students own
computers at the University of Richmond.
A study completed by the Department of Commerce and the
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
indicates that no historically black college or university
requires computer ownership for their undergraduate students.
Thirteen HBCUs reported having no students owning their own
personal computer. Over 70 percent of students at historically
black colleges and universities rely on the college or
university to provide computers, but only 50 percent of those
universities can provide their students with access to
computers.
While this study did not address the needs of other MSIs,
there is anecdotal evidence that other MSIs have the same
problems at those found at HBCUs. This legislation is a start
in the right direction. By addressing the technology
deficiencies that exist at minority-serving institutions and
increasing access to technology, we can provide our young
people with the tools to success in college and life. I would
like to thank Senator Allen and our Senate colleagues who
passed similar legislation 97 to nothing. I would also like to
thank Congressman Ed Towns for all of his hard work on this
legislation, and Mr. Chairman, I thank you for scheduling this
bill for markup and for the staff for the hard work they put in
to get us to this point.
I urge all our members to support this worthwhile
legislation.
Chairman Boehlert. And thank you not only for your hard
work, but for your leadership. It is really appreciated.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Smith. First, I want to recognize--
is it a parliamentary question?
Mr. Smith of Michigan. It is a comment, Mr. Chairman,
forthe record, that you indicated that your were discharging our
Research Subcommittee, as I understood it, of the bill. Actually, the
Research Subcommittee held hearings on a similar bill, 2183. This bill
is new legislation that takes into consideration a compromise language
that was agreed to on the bill.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you for that intervention. I do
appreciate it. The records is clarified. The Chair recognizes
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
thank Mr. Forbes for carrying this this particular time. For
the last three or four years, I worked with Mr. Towns and
Senator Allen on this legislation, and would like very much to
have the two pieces of legislation combined so that Mr. Towns
can get his rightful credit.
Since we were able to reach an agreement that led to this
very bill that we are marking up today, there is an important
issue that needs to be addressed. Throughout the proposed bill,
references are made to ``acting through the Undersecretary'' or
to ``Undersecretary'' as a primary official in the Department
of Commerce, who will administer the Minority-Serving
Institutions Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Program. The Secretary of Commerce is the only Cabinet official
and Constitutionally-authorized official that can administer
programs in the Department of Commerce.
Traditionally, the Agency head, in this case, the
Secretary, is designated as the person authorized to carry out
the program authorized by the Congress. Following enactment of
the appropriate legislation, the Secretary in his discretion
could delegate authority to administer the authorized program.
We see no need to deviate from the standard procedure. In fact,
designating a lesser Cabinet official, whose title or position
might be subsequently eliminated and whose title may be
changed, could place the program in administrative limbo or at
risk.
Some might even interpret the designation of a lesser
departmental official undermining the significance of this
important program. All references to the Undersecretary I
suggest be changed to Secretary. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank you for expeditiously calling this for a markup. I am
pleased that you have agreed to amend this bill so that it may
include my resolution honoring the African-American scientist,
and I recommend to my colleagues, if they--if he wishes to
correct this, the approval--favorably approval of this
legislation. Thank you.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Without objection,
all members may place opening statements in the records at this
point.
[The statements follow:]

Statement by Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you called this markup today on such an
important piece of legislation. As an original cosponsor of this
legislation, I speak in support of it's favorable consideration by the
committee today.
Minority serving institutions will prepare a growing portion of the
future science and technology workforce, simply because demographics
dictate that minority students will comprise a greater and greater
share of the Nation's college-aged population.
It is in the national interest to ensure that minority serving
institutions have the capability to provide a quality education for
their students. This includes the presence of an important
infrastructure capable of supporting distance learning, research
collaborations with partner institutions, and remote access to
educational resources and national research facilities.
The legislation we will markup today provides funding grants to
minority serving institutions for information technology upgrades and
for training faculty and staff to use the technology effectively in
support of their education and research activities.
I am very happy that my colleagues, Congressmen Forbes and Town,
were able to reach an agreement that led to this very bill we are
marking up today. However, there is an important issue with this bill
that need to be addressed.
Throughout the proposed bill references are made to ``acting
through the Under Secretary'' or to the ``Under Secretary,'' as the
primary official in the Department of Commerce who will administer the
Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity program. The Secretary of Commerce is the only cabinet
official and constitutionally authorized official that can administer
programs in the Department of Commerce. Traditionally, the agency head,
in this case the Secretary, is designated as the person authorized to
carry out a program authorized by the Congress. Following enactment of
appropriate legislation, the Secretary, in his discretion, could
delegate authority to administer the authorized program. We see no need
to deviate from this standard procedure. In fact, designating a lesser
cabinet official--whose title or position might be subsequently
eliminated or whose title may be changed--could place the program in
administrative limbo or at risk. Some might even interpret the
designation of a lesser departmental official as undermining the
significance of this important program. All references to ``the Under
Secretary'' should be changed to ``Secretary.''
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for expeditiously calling
this markup. I am pleased that you have agreed to amend this bill so
that it may include my resolution honoring the African American
Scientist. I recommend H.R. 2801 to my colleagues and seek their
approval to favorably report the legislation to the house.
______

Statement of Hon. Jerry F. Costello

Good morning. Today, the House Science Committee is considering six
bills for mark-up. Most are non-controversial and receive wide
bipartisan support.
However, I have strong reservations regarding H.R. 1085, the NASA
Flexibility Act of 2003. I believe we must wait for recommendations and
guidance from the Gehman Commission that will address management
issues. If we are going to address the problems concerning NASA, we
need to take into account the goals and vision of NASA and manned space
flight. I understand that NASA needs to do more to attract and retain
the best possible workforce; however, I believe we can assist NASA by
waiting to hear what recommendations the Gehman Commission makes so we
can address all the management problems affecting NASA and its
workforce. I believe we must also continue to review NASA's existing
workforce authority and why it is underutilized.
Mr. Chairman, instead of rushing to complete this significant
legislation, I believe we must take a step back and review all our
options before moving forward on legislation that does not address the
problem.
Aside from H.R. 1085, I believe the other pieces of legislation
have been considered in a bipartisan fashion and expand programs in
numerous agencies. For example, H.R. 2692, the United States Fire
Administration (USFA) Authorization Act of 2003, authorizes funding for
USFA activities, such as training, fire research and public education
over the next three years. Over the last three decades, America's fire
safety record has significantly improved. However, there are still
opportunities for further improvements in our fire safety record, such
as encouraging the use of sprinkler systems in homes. HR 2692 will lead
us in the right direction. As a member of the Congressional Fire
Services Caucus, I am proud to support this legislation.
Further, I am glad the House Science Committee is moving forward on
the FAA Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2003. As a
conferee to the FAA bill for the Science Committee, I look forward to
working with my colleagues to enhance the research and development
programs as laid out in the legislation before this committee.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee for all their hard work
on these important issues and look forward today's proceedings.
______

Opening Statement of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today takes a critical step toward
ensuring that all of our nation's young people have access to the
education that will make them the leaders of tomorrow. I was pleased to
cosponsor this legislation, after working with my colleagues and with
Dr. Fred Humphries of NAFEO and Ms. Stephanie Myers to make it all it
needs to be. I commend Congressman Forbes and Congressman Towns for
their leadership on this issue, and you and Ranking Member Hall for
moving this bill so expeditiously toward the Floor.
It is good to see improving the computing infrastructure at our
minority serving institutions (MSIs) getting the attention and
expertise it deserves. This is an excellent piece of legislation that
acknowledges the profound nature of the digital divide, and puts forth
the resources necessary to start to bridge it. The digital divide
separates the nation's minority serving institutions from other
universities, but more importantly, it separates them from the vast
stores of information, of data archived around the world, and separates
them from potential collaborators and students as well. I applaud the
other body for voting unanimously 97-0 to pass the Allen bill, which
will set aside $1.2 billion over the next 5 years at the NSF to tackle
this enormous problem. I am glad to see the Science Committee showing
the same commitment.
This is a classic chicken and egg problem. Without excellent state-
of-the-art computing and networking infrastructure, our HBCUs, tribal
colleges, Hispanic universities, and those serving other minority
groups, will never be able to place their students on the cutting edge,
ready to take leadership positions in their respective fields. They
will never be able to compete with richer universities for grant money
for the big research programs. Of course, without that grant money, and
without rich and powerful alumni, they will never be able to afford to
purchase the infrastructure they need. We must break this cycle that is
locking up the potential of these great institutions and their
students.
Better connectivity will also let the world tap into the great
expertise and resources that have been generated in the HBCUs and other
MSIs over the years.
I am pleased that several provisions that I discussed with Dr.
Humphries in the hearing a few weeks ago here in the Science Committee
were finally incorporated into this bill. Specifically, I am referring
to the peer review provisions that will ensure that those people making
decisions of what institutions receive grants, will have an
appreciation and understanding of the challenges and capabilities of
our nation's minority serving institutions.
I hope that our colleagues here in the House display the same level
of commitment to excellence in education and research as those in the
Senate, and will support the bill that comes out of this Committee. If
so, I am confident that this bill will enable our minority students and
researchers to drive forward the march of science and technology, and
not be left behind by it.
Thank you.

Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered as read and opened to amendment at any point, and
that the members proceed with the amendments in the order of
the roster.
Before we go to the amendments, without objection, so
ordered. I will recognize Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you commented, this
bill was considered by the Research Committee. The original
bill asked that this be operated by the National Science
Foundation. The Research Subcommittee decided that was not
appropriate, and that the--a better place for it would be in TA
in the Department of Commerce. And since that is under the
jurisdiction of my Subcommittee, this bill should have gone to
my Subcommittee.
However, in view of the desire to get it out rapidly, we
simply worked very intensely, and I want to thank the staff of
the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee for
their spending many hours in the past week to try to get it in
shape to fit in the Department of Commerce, and I am pleased
that we were able to work this out.
It is very important to recognize that information
technology is a crucial skill for everyone in our workforce. Up
to 30 percent of U.S. jobs require significant information
technology skills. It is imperative that all students have
access and be properly educated in information technology.
However, many minority-serving institutions lack the
infrastructure, technical capacity and training to provide
their students with core competencies in information technology
skills.
These minority students and women are a vast, untapped
talent pool that we must support and cultivate, especially in
the science and engineering areas, and I have been saying for
years that America is the only company that throws away about
half of its potential science and engineering workforce because
it fails to tap the talents of women and minorities, much more
so than any other nation does, and we must emulate other
nations and be equal opportunity on this score.
I would like to thank the sponsors of the bill, Mr. Forbes
and Senator Allen, as well as the Committee Chairman, Mr.
Boehlert, for working with us as we attempted to address this
digital divide issue. I would also like to thank them for
working with me to strengthen the program by adding a provision
to support information technology training for pre-service and
end service teachers in the science, mathematics, engineering
and technology fields within these institutions, and
unfortunately, that portion was left out of the bill, but I
believe the Chairman is offering an amendment to correct that
oversight.
That is also a reason that I support the entire bill,
because the jobs of the future are going to require a basic
knowledge of science and mathematics, and if we don't pass this
bill and implement it, we are once again depriving minorities
of an opportunity for those good jobs.
Another aspect of the bill is ensuring that expert review
panels will consider quality and merit in awarding the grants
under this program. This is a very expensive program. We are
talking about $250 million a year for 4 years, and that is a
lot of money. The original version of the bill did not have
adequate review and evaluation, and so we included this aspect,
also ensuring that an independent assessment by the National
Academy of Public Administration will evaluate the impact and
effectiveness of the program in improving the IT education of
students and faculty at the participating institutions.
I do want to offer one word of caution. Today, on the
floor, we are considering the Commerce, State and Justice
Appropriations Bill. The--once again, the Commerce Department
is suffering under this bill, particularly the scientific
aspects of it, because too much money is being taken away to
fund the Justice Department in view of our responsibilities
with homeland security and the fight against terrorism. No one
objects to fighting the terrorism and funding the Justice
Department, but the funding in the Commerce Department is
simply not adequate, and 70 percent of the Justice Department
budget is concerned with science. If we add this burden on
them, we must collectively ensure that the appropriators
provide the money for this, otherwise, the money simply will
not be there. The Commerce Department does not have spare
change, let alone $250 million a year, and so, if we reallywant
to make this bill work, we are really going to have to work with the
appropriations process to make certain that the funding is provided.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon.
Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I want to
congratulate the distinguished Member from Virginia for an
outstanding piece of legislation. I solidly and completely,
enthusiastically support this legislation.
In our region of Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and
Maryland, we are organizing our minority-focused institutions,
led by Cheney University and Lincoln University, which are
right near my district, to involve themselves in a greater
technology initiative. This legislation will help lay the
foundation for that. It encourages the private sector to become
involved, which we are doing, and so I think the gentleman is
right on the mark, and I would echo the comments of Vern Ehlers
that we have to work the appropriation process now to get some
funding on the table to implement the ideas in this bill .
Chairman Boehlert. And we are all committed to that
proposition. I thank you. If no one else wishes to be heard,
the first amendment on the roster is the manager's amendment,
which I will offer. The amendment has been distributed. The
Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2801, offered by Mr. Boehlert.
Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. Let me--plain
and simple, this amendment is designed to clarify that teacher
training in the use of technology in the classroom should
include instruction in science, mathematics, engineering and
technology subjects. Right to the point, plain and simple.
Anyone seek recognition to discuss that? If not, the question
is on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed,
nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is passed.
Anyone else seek recognition for the purpose of amending
the bill?
Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment after this.
Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
thank you for your patience and your indulgence also. I commend
the offerers of this bill for the work towards the worthy goal
of providing opportunities to assist minority-serving
institutions in acquiring and augmenting their use of digital
and wireless networking technologies to improve the quality and
delivery of education services at eligible institutions.
The bill we are marking up today lists a number of classes
of eligible institutions as defined in the Higher Education Act
of 1965, to wit, historically black colleges and universities,
Hispanic-serving institutions, tribal colleges, Alaskan Native
serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions.
Unfortunately, there is--there is currently not a
definition of Asian-American and Pacific Islander serving
institutions in the Higher Education Act. H.R. 333, introduced
by my colleague, Mr. Wu, and myself, which was originally
introduced by Mr. Underwood in the 107th Congress, would amend
the Higher Education Act to create such a category.
Since this bill has not been enacted into law, we must
offer amendments such as the one that we have today to include
these institutions among those served by worthy programs such
as this one.
Our amendment defines for the purposes of this program
Asian-American and Pacific Islander serving institutions that
would be eligible to apply for grant created by this program. I
recognize that there are several issues that this category
brings up. If we simply define such institution as having a
certain percentage of student population comprised of Asian-
American and Pacific Islander students, we open the door to
many institutions that, quite frankly, do not require the
assistance of this program that this program is designed to
provide.
To try to address this problem, we added an income
qualification to the definition. However, this will not address
another concern that members have expressed to me that our
amendment may be interpreted as changing the Higher Education
Act, which is beyond this Committee's jurisdiction. To achieve
this goal, what we really need to do is to advance our bill
H.R. 333 in the Education Committee, and so I will be working
towards that.
I do believe that the bill now offers some flexibility on
the part of the Secretary to consider institutions not
explicitly listed in the bill, and I hope that we can work with
members of both the majority and the minority parties on report
language and I would seek the cooperation of the Chair that we
would express, that the sentiment that there are some
institutions that serve Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders
that this bill will eventually encompass.
Mr. Chair, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment with the understanding I will be working
together and wordsmithing the report language.
[Statement of Michael Honda:]

Statement of Hon. Mike Honda

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the Desk.
I commend the authors of this bill for their work towards the
worthy goal of providing opportunities to assist minority serving
institutions in acquiring and augmenting their use of digital and
wireless networking technologies to improve the quality and delivery of
educational services at eligible institutions.
The bill we are marking up today lists a number of classes of
eligible institutions as defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965
(as amended)--Historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic
serving institutions, tribal colleges, Alaska Native serving
institutions, and Native Hawaiian serving institutions.
Unfortunately, there is currently not a definition of Asian
American and Pacific Islander serving institutions in the Higher
Education Act. H.R. 333, introduced by my colleague Mr. Wu and myself,
which was originally introduced by Mr. Underwood in the 107th Congress,
would amend the Higher Education Act to create such a category.
Since this bill has not yet been enacted into law we must offer
amendments such as the one that Mr. Wu and I are offering today to
include these institutions among those served by worthy programs such
as this one. Our amendment defines for the purposes of this program
``Asian American and Pacific Islander serving institutions'' that would
be eligible to apply for the grants created by this program.
I recognize that there are several issues that this category brings
up. If we simply define such an institution as having a certain
percentage of the student population comprised of Asian American and
Pacific Islander students, we open the door to many institutions that,
quite frankly, do not require the assistance that this program is
designed to provide. To try to address this problem, we added an income
qualification to the definition.
This will not address another concern that Members have expressed
to me, that our amendment may be interpreted as changing the Higher
Education Act, which is beyond the Committee's jurisdiction. To achieve
this goal, what we really need to do is to advance our bill H.R. 333 in
the Education committee, and I support my colleague Mr. Wu's efforts on
this front.
I believe that the bill offers some flexibility on the part of the
Secretary to consider institutions not explicitly listed in the bill,
and I hope that we can work with members of both the majority and
minority parties on report language that would express the sentiment
that there are some institutions that serve Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders that this bill should encompass.

Chairman Boehlert. Is there any objection to the unanimous
consent request of the gentleman? Hearing none, so ordered.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, to your left.
Chairman Boehlert. Seeks recognition.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. I would move to strike the last
word.
Chairman Boehlert. The chair recognizes Mr. Smith of
Michigan.
Mr. Smith of Michigan. Just in reacting to Mr. Honda's
amendment, I think it does bring to our attention that there
are many areas that could use the help in this technological
divide. I think of women in our effort may be in colleges that
have 70 percent women. I think of community colleges where
great potential exists, so our goal in narrowing the digital
divide is helping those students and those institutions that
need the help.
Now, there is no question in my mind that traditionally,
black colleges need the help, but also, there is a lot of other
schools and a lot of other students that need that help, Mr.
Chairman, and I would just like to say that directing our
limited available resources to those most in need should be the
primary goal of the policy of this Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce for the record--in
our Committee, we held a two hour long hearing with three
witnesses testifying on this bill. The Director of the National
Science Foundation testified that she did not feel it
appropriate that this kind of legislation with that
responsibility be directed toward the National Science
Foundation. I have a letter sent to the Chairman from Assistant
Secretary Brenda Baker that says that they would prefer that it
not be in Commerce either, and it says, and I quote the second
paragraph: ``I am advised that the financial assistance is
already available for institutions of higher education,
including minority-serving institutions, to acquire educational
technologies, provide educational services, including faculty
development, use of other technologies through several
Department of Education programs. In addition, the President's
Fiscal Year '04 budget supports a number of programs
administered through the Departments of Education and
Agriculture to provide financial assistance to improve
technology instruction and infrastructure at higher educational
facilities including minority-serving institutions, and
accordingly, the Secretary says the Administration opposes the
creation of a duplicative program called for in 2183 that is
inconsistent with the President's budget.'' And I would move
that this letter be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]

Department of Commerce, the Assistant Secretary for
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs,
Washington, DC, July 22, 2003.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Your Committee is scheduled to mark up
H.R. 2183, the ``Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003'', on July 22,
2003. We understand that your Committee has appropriately
determined that this program is ill-suited for placement in the
National Science Foundation. We understand that the version of
the bill that will be considered would create a new grant
program within the Department of Commerce's Technology
Administration and would authorize appropriations of $250
million for each of the next five fiscal years.
I am advised that financial assistance is already available
for institutions of higher education, including minority-
serving institutions, to acquire educational technologies and
provide educational services, including faculty development in
the use of these technologies, through several Department of
Education programs. In addition, the President's FY 2004 Budget
supports a number of programs, administered through the
Departments of Education and Agriculture, to provide financial
assistance to improve technology instruction and infrastructure
at higher-education facilities, including minority-serving
institutions. Accordingly, the Administration opposes the
creation of a duplicative program that is inconsistent with the
President's Budget.
In addition, I am advised that the Department of Justice
has raised constitutional concerns about the definition of
``eligible institution'' in the legislation.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the submission of this letter from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Brenda Becker.

Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you
very much. The Chair now recognizes.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman. She has a----
Chairman Boehlert. The Chair recognizes Ms. Woolsey for the
purpose of offering an amendment.
Ms. Woolsey. I would like to offer Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson's amendment that would add a new section to the bill.
Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. The amendment to H.R. 2801 offered by Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas, offered on behalf of Ms. Woolsey.
Chairman Boehlert. Just the opposite.
The Clerk. Oh, on behalf of Ms. Woolsey, an amendment
offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr.----
Chairman Boehlert. Ms. Woolsey is recognized.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment adds a
new section to the bill, Section 10, and it just very clearly
and simply covers the achievements and honors the achievements
and contributions of African-American scientists,
mathematicians and inventors, and it is a good fit in this
bill, and she is very appreciative that it was added to this--
--
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, and I might add it
is a good fit. We are in agreement. Who else seeks recognition?
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like to add my support. It is an
excellent amendment and it has a good fit to a bill, Mr.
Chairman, that I would like to thank the Ranking and Chairman
of this Subcommittee and then the full Committee leadership for
this legislation. I know that it had a very long journey from
the area where it was previously placed to the Department of
Commerce. I believe with the leadership of NAFEO that we are
moving on steady ground. I am delighted that we answered their
concerns in negotiation on the question of peer review, meaning
that their peers would be reviewing their proposals, that there
is very good funding, that we are addressing a very crucial
issue, which many of us would like not to admit, and that is
the digital divide in institutions of higher learning, and so
this legislation will help with the infrastructure, the
education capabilities of historically black colleges, Native
American colleges and others, and as well, create a network
system where students can communicate with each other and the
colleges can communicate with each other. This is crucial and I
believe the amendment of the distinguished lady from Texas will
add a very strong component to acknowledging those achievements
of African-American scientists who have gone on before.
Thank you.
Chairman Boehlert. I thank the gentlelady. Is there anyone
else who seeks recognition? if not, the question occurs on the
amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes
have it, and the amendment is adopted. Are there any further
amendments? There are none. The vote is on the bill as amended.
H.R. 2801, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the
ayes have it. Now, I will recognize Mr. Hall for a motion.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably
report H.R. 2801 as amended to the House with a recommendation
that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I move that
the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report, make
necessary technical and conforming changes and that the
Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the
House for consideration.
Chairman Boehlert. The Chair notes the presence of a
reporting quorum. The question is on the motion to report the
bill favorably. Those in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.
The ayes have it. The ayes appear to have it, and the bill is
favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider
is laid upon the table. I move that members have two subsequent
calendar days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or
additional views on the measure. I move, pursuant to Clause 1
of Rule 22 of the House that the Committee authorize the
Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House
to go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 2801, or a
similar Senate bill. Without objection, so ordered.
[Whereupon, the Committee proceeded to other business.]

AMENDMENT ROSTER

H.R. 2801, Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Act of 2003

--Motion to adopt the bill, as amended: agreed to by a
voice vote.
--Motion to adopt the bill, as amended: agreed to by a
voice vote.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Sponsor Description Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mr. Boehlert...... Amendment would specify --Adopted by a
that educating voice vote.
teachers in science,
math, engineering, and
technology are among
the areas for which
funding could be
provided.
2. Mr. Honda......... Amendment would add to --Unanimous
the list of eligible consent request
institutions--Asian to withdraw the
American and Pacific amendment; agreed
Islander serving to by a voice
institutions. vote.
3. Ms. Eddie Bernice Amendment adds a new --Adopted by a
Johnson. section to the bill: voice vote.
Sec. 10--Achievements
and Contributions of
African-American
Scientists,
Mathematicians, and
Inventors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to H.R. 2801 Offered by Mr. Boehlert

Page 3, line 11, insert ``, including instruction in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology subjects''
after ``instructional process''.