[House Report 109-211]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Rept. 109-211
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session Part 1
======================================================================
MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY
OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005
_______
July 28, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Boehlert, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 921]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
921) to establish a digital and wireless network technology
program, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose of the Bill.............................................2
II. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................2
III. Hearing Summary.................................................3
IV. Committee Actions...............................................4
V. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................5
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section)..............5
VII. Committee Views.................................................7
VIII. Cost Estimate...................................................9
IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................10
X. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........11
XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............11
XII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........11
XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................12
XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................12
XV. Congressional Accountability Act...............................12
XVI. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........12
XVII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........12
XVIII.Committee Recommendations......................................16
XIX. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................17
I. 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.
II. 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 (Mb/s)--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 evidence suggests 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's 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.
III. Hearing Summary
During the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Research of
the Committee on Science held a hearing to examine the unmet
technology infrastructure needs of minority-serving
institutions (MSIs). Invited witnesses provided comments on and
made recommendations foradditions to H.R. 2183, the Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of
2003. This legislation, introduced by Representative J. Randy Forbes,
was the predecessor to H.R. 921 in the 109th Congress.
Specifically, on July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee received
testimony from Senator George Allen, sponsor of S. 196, the
Senate companion to H.R. 2183, and Representative 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 them. Finally, the Subcommittee
heard from then National Science Foundation (NSF) Director, Dr.
Rita Colwell. Dr. 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 bill's placement of the program at
NSF.
IV. Committee Actions
After the hearing in the 108th Congress, 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.
On July 22, 2003, the Full Committee on Science met to
consider H.R. 2801. 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.
On November 14, 2004, the Committee on Science reported the
bill, as amended, and filed the report (108-789). No further
action was taken prior to the adjournment of the 108th
Congress.
On February 17, 2005, Representatives J. Randy Forbes and
Edolphus Towns reintroduced the Minority Serving Institution
Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005 as H.R.
921.
The full Committee on Science met on May 4, 2005 to
consider H.R. 921. The bill was ordered reported, favorably,
without amendment by unanimous consent.
V. 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 2006 and
all subsequent years through fiscal year 2010.
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section)
Section 1. Short title
The ``Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act of 2005.''
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, and
infrastructure; (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 2006 and each year
through fiscal year 2010.
VII. Committee Views
The Committee believes that our continued economic growth
and competitiveness depends 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 the bill was initially conceived during the 108th
Congress, the 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. 921 and its 108th Congress predecessor, H.R.
2801, as amended, is a better fit.
While the Committee believes that the Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Act of 2005 will
help provide important seed money to address thetechnology
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 students and
faculty 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 five-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, two-year and four-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.
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.
VIII. 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. 921 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.
921 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.
IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2005.
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. 921, the Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Act of 2005.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mike Waters.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth M. Robinson
(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 921--Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Act of 2005
Summary: H.R. 921 would create a new grant program within
the Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce for
educational institutions that serve minority students. Eligible
institutions could use the funds to improve instructional
capabilities and infrastructure related to digital and wireless
technologies. The bill would authorize the appropriation of
$250 million for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for
this program and would require grant recipients to provide
matching funds under certain conditions. The Under Secretary of
Commerce for Technology would administer the new Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Program with guidance from a special advisory council.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 921 would cost $823 million
over the 2006-2010 period. CBO estimates that enacting this
bill would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.
H.R. 921 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA);
any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result
from complying with the conditions of federal assistance.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 921 is shown in the following table.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized will
be appropriate near the start of each fiscal year and that
outlays will occur at rates similar to other educational grant
programs. The costs of this legislation fall within budget
function 370 (commerce and housing credit).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of
dollars--
---------------------------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level............. 250 250 250 250 250
Estimated Outlays............... 30 130 200 228 235
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 921
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined by UMRA. The bill would benefit eligible institutions
of higher education by authorizing $250 million per year, for
fiscal years 2006 through 2010, to strengthen their capacity to
provide instruction in digital and wireless networking
technologies. Public institutions could apply for and receive
these grants; any costs they incur would result from complying
with conditions of federal assistance.
Previous CBO estimate: On April 27, 2005, CBO transmitted a
cost estimate for S. 432, an identically titled bill, as
ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation on April 14, 2005. The two versions of the
legislation are similar and would authorize the same amount of
appropriations. H.R. 921 would place the implementation of the
program within the Department of Commerce while the Senate bill
would establish an entirely new office within the National
Science Foundation.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Michael Waters. Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum.
Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4
H.R. 921 contains no unfunded mandates.
XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
The Committee on Science's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
XII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of
H.R. 921 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 of 2005 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.
XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 921.
XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement
The functions of the advisory committee established by H.R.
921 are not currently being nor could they be performed by one
or more agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another
existing advisory committee.
XV. Congressional Accountability Act
The Committee finds that H.R. 921 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).
XVI. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or
tribal law.
XVII. 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 (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 5 OF THE 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 the program. 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 the program, 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).
XVIII. Committee Recommendations
On May 4, 2005, a quorum being present, the Committee on
Science favorably reported the Minority Serving Institution
Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005, by
unanimous consent, and recommended its enactment.
XIX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 921, MINORITY
SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT OF
2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Boehlert. Good morning. The Committee on Science
will come to order.
Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to
consider the following measures: H.R. 921, Minority Serving
Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of
2005; H.R. 1674, U.S. Tsunami Warning and Education Act; and
H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005.
I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the
Committee at any point during consideration of these matters.
And without objection, that is so ordered.
We will now proceed with the markup, beginning with opening
statements, and I will launch it.
I want to welcome everyone to this important markup. As
usual, we have before us bills that represent bipartisan
efforts to come up with practical solutions to real problems.
These bills will advance education, protect our Nation and
others from natural disasters, enhance research and
environmental protection, and strengthen our economy. Not bad
for one morning's work.
And I would add that while we are marking up these bills,
we are also working behind the scenes on our portions of the
Homeland Security reauthorization bill that was reported out of
the Homeland Committee last week.
Let me talk briefly now about each of the bills before us
to save time later.
First up is Mr. Forbes' bill to help minority serving
institutions get the information technology equipment they
need. This bill is identical to the version this committee
approved last year, and the bill must also go through the
Education and Workforce Committee. To move the bill forward
swiftly, both sides of the aisle here have agreed to simply
move the bill this morning by unanimous consent.
I think the bill will provide needed assistance to
educational institutions that are essential to our efforts to
develop more scientists and engineers from under-represented
groups. And I think our version of the bill, which places the
program in the Department of Commerce rather than the National
Science Foundation, matches the program with the appropriate
agency for carrying it out.
Our second bill will be the one I have introduced with
Representative Inslee to ensure that the Nation and the world
are better prepared to detect and respond to tsunamis. We all
watched with horror last December as the Indian Ocean tsunami
wreaked its devastation. Much of the death that occurred could
have been avoided.
We have an obligation to learn more about tsunamis through
research, to improve our ability to detect tsunamis and issue
warnings about them, and to improve tsunami preparation and
education so that we can limit damage and know what to do when
the warnings come. This bill will improve research, detection,
and education, and significantly, sets aside a proportion of
appropriated funds for each of these essential activities.
The basis of this bill was the Administration's plan. The
Administration is to be congratulated for its swift,
thoughtful, and comprehensive response to last December's
events. We then built on the Administration's proposal,
following the guidance we received during our January hearing.
As a result, the bill stresses and ensures funding for tsunami
preparation and education. And we also press for tsunami
detection to be integrated as much as possible with other
Earth- and ocean-observing systems.
Finally, we will take up Dr. Ehlers' manufacturing bill,
which the House passed last year. I know that, as was the case
last year, we will have some debate over adding to the bill
ideas that may be worthy in themselves, the proposals, but that
would guarantee the demise of the bill. That is something we
don't want to do. I will oppose most of these amendments, which
include authorizing--I don't say all of them, because I haven't
seen all of them. I will oppose most of the amendments, which
include authorizing the Advanced Technology Program, a program
that I have always supported and continue to support. But I
want to make--actually, I want to make progress on the bill in
connection with manufacturing. That is especially important as
we enter the budget season with appropriations likely to be
more constrained than ever.
And let me say at the outset that I don't want the
amendment debate to obscure the broad, bipartisan support for
the base bill, which the House passed last year by voice vote,
no mean achievement given the political debate surrounding
manufacturing last year.
We were going to also do a markup--during the markup this
morning of the NOAA authorization bill, but both we and the
Democrats have brought up significant additional changes to the
bill. We need some more time to talk those through. We will
reschedule the markup of the NOAA bill swiftly, and I would
hope we could do it as early as next week.
So let me close by thanking my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle for their contributions to these bills. As usual, we
have beaten the odds and have worked out sensible, targeted,
bipartisan measures.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
I want to welcome everyone to this important markup. As usual, we
have before us bills that represent bipartisan efforts to come up with
practical solutions to real problems. These bills will advance
education, protect our nation and others from natural disasters,
enhance research and environmental protection and strengthen our
economy. Not bad for one morning's work.
And I would add that while we are marking up these bills, we are
also working behind the scenes on our portions of the Homeland Security
reauthorization bill that was reported out of the Homeland Committee
last week.
Let me talk briefly now about each of the bills before us today to
save time later.
First up is Mr. Forbes' bill to help minority serving institutions
get the information technology equipment they need. This bill is
identical to the version this committee approved last year, and the
bill must also go through the Education and Workforce Committee. To
move the bill forward swiftly, both sides of the aisle here have agreed
to simply move the bill this morning by unanimous consent.
I think the bill will provide needed assistance to educational
institutions that are essential to our efforts to develop more
scientists and engineers from under-represented groups. And I think our
version of the bill, which places this program in the Department of
Commerce rather than in the National Science Foundation, matches the
program with the appropriate agency for carrying it out.
Our second bill will be the bill I've introduced with
Representative Inslee to ensure that the Nation and the world are
better prepared to detect and respond to tsunamis. We all watched with
horror last December as the Indian Ocean tsunami wreaked its
devastation. Much of the death could have been avoided.
We have an obligation to learn more about tsunamis through
research, to improve our ability to detect tsunamis and issue warnings
about them, and to improve tsunami preparation and education so that we
can limit damage and know what to do when the warnings come. This bill
will improve research, detection and education and, significantly, sets
aside a proportion of appropriated funds for each of those essential
activities.
The basis of this bill was the Administration's plan. The
Administration is to be congratulated for its swift, thoughtful and
comprehensive response to last December's events. We then built on the
Administration proposal, following the guidance we received in our
January hearing. As a result, the bill stresses and ensures funding for
tsunami preparation and education, and we also press for tsunami
detection to be integrated, as much as possible, with other Earth- and
ocean-observing systems.
Finally, we will take up Dr. Ehlers' manufacturing bill, which the
House passed last year. I know that, as was the case last year, we will
have some debate over adding to the bill ideas that may be worthy in
themselves, but that would guarantee the demise of this bill. I will
oppose those amendments, which include authorizing the Advanced
Technology Program, a program I have always supported and continue to
support. But I want to actually make progress on manufacturing. That's
especially important as we enter the budget season with appropriations
likely to be more constrained than ever.
And let me say at the outset that I don't want the amendment debate
to obscure the broad, bipartisan support for the base bill, which the
House passed last year by voice vote--no mean achievement given the
political debate surrounding manufacturing last year.
We were going to also mark up the NOAA organic act this morning,
but both we and the Democrats have brought up significant additional
changes to the bill. We need some more time to talk those through. We
will reschedule the markup of the NOAA bill swiftly--perhaps as early
as next week.
So let me close by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle for their contributions to these bills. As usual, we've beaten
the odds and have worked out sensible, targeted, bipartisan measures.
Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first thank you for moving NOAA to a later date so
that we can have a chance--I am sure that this is something
that we can work out. And there is, I think, general agreement
on both the minority and the majority on this bill.
We are also pleased that the Committee is moving forward on
its legislative agenda, and we look forward to continuing to
work on a bipartisan basis on several major bills that we hope
will be before the Committee shortly.
Today, we are addressing three important legislative areas.
We applaud the choice of topics and only question why the
Committee has not chosen to legislate more aggressively in
certain of these areas, especially manufacturing. We support
H.R. 921, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technological Opportunity Act. The bill would provide 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. Minority serving institutions prepare a
growing portion of the future science and technology workforce
of the Nation, and it is important that these colleges and
universities be able to provide a quality education for their
students.
H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act,
is a start, but we need to make the bill's content live up to
its title. Democratic Members of the Committee, once again,
will be offering amendments to the MEP funding, workforce
training, and technology innovation that would make the bill
much stronger. Even if these pass, we will only have taken the
first steps on one of the biggest problems of our day, and we
hope we will have other opportunities this Congress to deal
with the other aspects of this far-reaching problem.
We are especially pleased that the Committee, in a
bipartisan fashion, has so rapidly developed H.R. 1674, the
United States Tsunami Warning and Education Act. The bill
directs NOAA to expand the current tsunami warning system on
two basins so that all U.S. coastal areas and territories will
be covered by a buoy-based detection and warning system. The
bill also directs NOAA to conduct a community-based tsunami
hazard mitigation program to ensure coastal communities are
prepared to act upon any warning issued by the tsunami warning
centers and establish a tsunami research program. We
enthusiastically support the bill. We feel that the funding
levels for hazard mitigation and education programs are too
low. Mr. Wu's amendment would correct this problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon
We are pleased that the Committee is moving forward on its
legislative agenda and we look forward to continuing to work on a
bipartisan basis on several major bills that we hope will be before the
Committee shortly.
Today we are addressing four important legislative areas. We
applaud the choice of topics and only question why the Committee has
not chosen to legislate more aggressively in certain of these areas,
especially manufacturing.
We support H.R. 921, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and
Wireless Technology Opportunity Act. The bill would provide 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. Minority serving
institutions prepare a growing portion of the future science and
technology workforce of the Nation, and it is important that these
colleges and universities be able to provide a quality education for
their students.
H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, is a
start but we need to make the bill's contents live up to its title.
Democratic Members of the Committee, once again, will be offering
amendments on MEP funding, workforce training, and technology
innovation that would make the bill much stronger. Even if these pass,
we will only have taken first steps on one of the biggest problems of
our day and we hope we will have other opportunities this Congress to
deal with other aspects of this far-reaching problem.
We are especially pleased that the Committee in a bipartisan
fashion has so rapidly developed H.R. 1674, the United States Tsunami
Warning and Education Act. The bill directs NOAA to expand the current
tsunami warning system to basins so that all U.S. coastal areas and
territories will be covered by a buoy-based detection and warning
system. The bill also directs NOAA to conduct a community-based tsunami
hazard mitigation program to ensure coastal communities are prepared to
act upon any warnings issued by the tsunami warning centers and
establishes a tsunami research program. We enthusiastically support the
bill but feel that the funding levels for hazard mitigation and the
education program are too low. Mr. Wu's amendment would correct this
problem.
Chairman Boehlert. Thank you.
Without objection, Members may place opening statements in
the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative J. Randy Forbes
H.R. 921, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Act of 2005, is intended to strengthen and
upgrade the technological infrastructure at Minority Serving
Institutions, enabling these institutions to offer students the same
access as their peers at other institutions of higher learning.
The Minority Serving Digital Institution and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Act of 2005 would establish a new grant program that would
provide up to $250 million to help Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges bridge
the digital divide. The grant program would be used to:
Purchase digital and wireless network technologies
and infrastructure equipment for campus wiring, equipment
upgrades and hardware/software;
Develop and provide technology education services,
including faculty and teacher education;
Provide technical assistance through workshops,
distance learning and other technology applications;
And foster the use of information communications
technology to increase engineering, math and science research.
Sixty percent of all jobs require information technology skills and
jobs in information technology pay significantly higher salaries than
jobs in non-information technology fields. Today, Minority Serving
Institutions lack the basic information and digital technology
infrastructure needed to provide their students the necessary skills
and access to compete and qualify for America's best paying jobs.
According to a recent report from the Department of Commerce:
No Historically Black College or Universities (HBCUs)
require computer ownership for their undergraduate students;
13 of the 80 HBCUs that participated in the study
reported that no students owned computers (there are a total of
103 HBCUs);
Over 70 percent of the students at HBUCs rely on the
universities to provide computers, however only 50 percent
provide students access to computers in computer laboratories,
libraries, classrooms or other locations;
Only three percent of HBCUs have financial aid
available to help students close the computer ownership gap;
One-third of the U.S. population uses the Internet at
home, while only 16.1 percent of Hispanics and 18.9 percent of
African Americans have Internet access at home.
This legislation is about much more than just equality in
education; it is about economic advancement and ensuring that America
retains its edge in the math, science and technology fields--a
critically important requirement in today's increasingly competitive
economic environment.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for bringing this important
legislation up today for a mark up. I am a proud co-sponsor of this
legislation.
Just as we passed this legislation last session, I am still very
much in support of its intent. 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 information
infrastructure capable of supporting distance learning, research
collaborations with partner institutions, and remote access to
educational resources and national research facilities.
Unfortunately, the capability does not exist at most minority
serving institutions. A recent report from the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration documents the
deficiencies in the information infrastructure of these colleges and
universities. Although most institutions have some Internet access, it
is generally not the high-speed access necessary to support distance
education and research applications. More troubling, half of these
institutions have no plan in place for upgrading their information
technology infrastructure. Since minority serving institutions have
significantly smaller budgets than other higher education institutions,
and therefore less money for information technology support and
upgrades, they will inevitably fall further behind as the technology
continues its rapid advance.
The legislation up for markup today seeks to address this problem
by providing 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.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing this bill to come up
for markup and for your intent to move the legislation expeditiously. I
urge my colleagues to support its passage.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative 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 if tomorrow. I want to thank my colleague Mr.
Forbes for reintroducing this needed piece of legislation. I am pleased
to be a co-sponsor of this legislation just as I was in the 108th
Congress. During that last Congress, I worked with Dr. Fred Humphries
of NAFEO and Ms. Stephanie Myers to improve upon this legislation.
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 am pleased to
see the Science Committee showing strong commitment to this worthy
bill.
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 hearings held during the last Congress 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 institutes.
I hope that our colleagues here in the House display the same level
of commitment to excellence in education and research as those here in
the Science Committee, 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. We will now consider H.R. 921, Minority
Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity
Act of 2005.
I ask unanimous consent that the Committee favorably report
H.R. 921--oh, we are doing this one on the--got it. I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee favorably report H.R. 921
to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass and
that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and
make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the
Chairman take all of the necessary steps to bring the bill
before the House for consideration.
I also ask unanimous consent 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 Rules of the House of
Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to
offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to adopt
and pass H.R. 921. Without objection, so ordered.
I want to thank the Members for their attendance and for
their continued active participation in the deliberations of
this committee.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 921, Section-by-Section Analysis
Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 921, Minority Serving Institution
Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005
Section 1. Short Title
``Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology
Opportunity Act of 2005.''
Section 2. Establishment of the Program
Establishes the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless
Technology Opportunity Program within the Technology Administration of
the Department of Commerce to assist minority-serving institutions
(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, comprised of representatives of
MSIs, minority businesses and others with expertise in technology, to
help encourage maximum participation in the program.
Establishes a review panel, selected by the Under Secretary and
includes 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. The Under Secretary is required to consider
the recommendations of the review panel in determining whether to award
or deny funds.
Requires institutions to report annually to the Under Secretary on
their use of the funds.
Requires 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.
Defines terms.
Section 3. Authorization of Appropriations
Authorizes $250 million for fiscal year 2006 and each of the
following fiscal years through fiscal year 2010.