[Senate Report 110-257]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress 
 2d Session                      SENATE                          Report
                                                                110-257
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 557

 
     MAX CLELAND MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS 
                       TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                S. 1650



                                     

                January 8, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
 Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 19, 2007
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                       one hundred tenth congress
                             second session

                   DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
                   TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West         JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    Virginia                         TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts         KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California            GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BILL NELSON, Florida                 JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas                 DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS CARPER, Delaware              JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
          Margaret Cummisky, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
         Lila Helms, Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
       Jean Toal Eisen, Senior Advisor and Deputy Policy Director
     Christine Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
                Paul J. Nagle, Republican Chief Counsel
             Mimi Braniff, Republican Deputy Chief Counsel


                                                       Calendar No. 557
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     110-257

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




     MAX CLELAND MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS 
                       TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT

                                _______
                                

                January 8, 2008.--Ordered to be printed

 Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 19, 2007

                                _______
                                

       Mr. Inouye, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 1650]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 1650) to establish a digital 
and wireless network technology program, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon, with amendments, and recommends that the bill (as 
amended) do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

  The purpose of the bill is to establish a $250 million per 
year grant program within the Department of Commerce (DOC) from 
fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to strengthen the ability of 
minority-serving institutions (MSIs), which include 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-
Serving Institutions (HSIs), tribal colleges and universities 
(TCUs), Alaska Native-serving institutions, and Native 
Hawaiian-serving institutions to provide instruction in digital 
and wireless network technologies, and enhance the Nation's 
digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing national 
investment in telecommunications and technology infrastructure 
at these institutions. The bill is designed to close the 
``economic opportunity divide'' that exists between the 
graduates of MSIs and graduates of other institutions of higher 
learning, and thus, improve the quality of education for 
students at MSIs. These institutions will continue to play an 
important role in providing the Nation with a well educated and 
talented workforce.
  The bill would allow eligible institutions the opportunity 
through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, to 
acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking capability, 
hardware and software, digital network technology, and wireless 
technology and infrastructure. These institutions also would be 
able to develop and provide educational services, including 
faculty development, related to science, mathematics, 
engineering, or technology. MSIs could use the funds to offer 
students universal access to campus networks, dramatically 
increase their connectivity rates, or make necessary 
infrastructure improvements.
  Through a peer-reviewed process, and in consultation with the 
Secretary of the DOC, eligible institutions could receive up to 
$2.5 million per year with a 25 percent cost-sharing (not to 
exceed $500,000). This matching requirement would be waived for 
any MSI with an endowment of less than $50 million.

                          BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Historically Black Colleges and Universities
  In October 2000, the DOC's National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) released a report, 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of 
Networking and Connectivity. The report was the product of a 
study to gain an overall perspective of the networking 
capabilities and connectivity of HBCUs, and to obtain data that 
would evaluate the capacity of HBCUs to function as part of the 
national global network. An assessment instrument was sent to 
all 118 HBCUs; eighty colleges (68 percent) responded.
  The report found that 88 percent of the respondents had 
access to T-1 lines, which provide a bandwidth of a specific 
speed rate and capacity suitable for basic functions, from 
their local Internet service providers and operating companies. 
Fifty percent of reporting institutions had access to T-3 
lines, which offer greater capacity, though only three 
institutions were using T-3 connections. Forty-three percent of 
respondents had Asynchronous Transfer Mode technology that 
allows for greater bandwidth and broader Internet technology 
access. Of the 43 percent that had such access, only 45 percent 
indicated they used the technology. Twenty-nine percent of 
HBCUs reported having access to wireless Internet service and 
43 percent of those with access were using it.
  These technology restrictions limit HBCUs' abilities to fully 
utilize existing technology applications and connect with other 
institutions of higher education. For example, many schools do 
not have video streaming capability, and there is only minimal 
use of group software indicating limited use of intranets, or 
other Internet-based collaboration. Fewer than 15 percent of 
the respondents offered distance-learning programs. HBCU 
connectivity with libraries, State college systems, the Federal 
government, and other resources remains limited.
  In addition, the study found limited student computer 
ownership. No HBCU reported requiring computer ownership, and 
only 15 percent recommended that students bring their own 
computers to campus. Seventy-six percent of the responding 
schools estimated that less than one of every four of their 
students owned a computer; therefore, over 75 percent of 
students attending HBCUs must rely on the universities to 
provide computers to access the Internet, World Wide Web, or 
other network. In the face of this need, only 50 percent of the 
responding HBCUs provide students access to these networks at 
multiple campus locations, and only 45 percent provide access 
to the campus backbone in dormitory common areas.
  The NTIA report suggested the following goals: (1) 
improvement of high-speed connectivity rates; (2) a dramatic 
increase in student computer ownership; (3) improvement of 
HBCUs' strategic planning process; and (4) willingness to 
incorporate innovative technologies into campus networks.
Tribal colleges
  Tribal colleges also have demonstrated a need for improved 
technology infrastructure. For example, only one tribal college 
currently has funding for high bandwidth connectivity. All 
tribal colleges have some degree of T-1 access, but most only 
have fractional T-1 access. In addition, the NTIA report found 
that tribal colleges struggle to hire and maintain computer 
technicians, offering salaries at half the industry average.
Hispanic-serving institutions
  HSIs are two- and four-year colleges and universities whose 
Hispanic-American student enrollment is 25 percent or greater 
of total enrollment. Hispanics represent approximately 14.5 
percent (3.6 million) of the total traditional college-age 
population. In 2004, Hispanics composed 5 percent of graduate 
students and had particularly low representation in advanced 
degrees in engineering, mathematics, and computer and physical 
sciences. HSIs suffer technology problems similar to those of 
HBCUs, according to the Hispanic Association of Colleges and 
Universities which represents HSIs.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

  S. 1650 was introduced on June 19, 2007, by Senator Kerry. 
Senators Stevens, Warner, Pryor, Smith, Boxer, Lott, and Webb 
are co-sponsors of the legislation. On June 27, 2007, the 
Committee met in an open executive session and, by voice vote, 
ordered S. 1650 reported with an amendment.
  Previously, the bill was introduced in the 109th Congress as 
S. 432, which was sponsored by Senator Allen, and passed by the 
Senate without amendment by unanimous consent. In the 108th 
Congress, the Committee reported S. 196, which was passed by 
the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0. S. 196 was also sponsored by 
Senator Allen. The Committee initially considered and reported 
this legislation in the 107th Congress, when Senator Cleland 
sponsored S. 414, the NTIA Digital Network Technology Program 
Act.

                            ESTIMATED COSTS

  In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 11, 2007.
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman:  The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1650, the Max 
Cleland Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 
Technology Opportunity Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie.
            Sincerely,
                                         Peter R. Orszag, Director.
    Enclosure.

S. 1650--Max Cleland Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 
        Technology Opportunity Act

    Summary: S. 1650 would create a new grant program at the 
Department of Commerce (DOC) for educational institutions that 
serve minority students. Eligible institutions would use the 
funds to acquire digital and wireless technologies and to 
increase instructional capacity in the areas of science, 
mathematics, and technology. The bill would authorize the 
appropriation of $250 million per year over the 2008-2012 
period for this program and would require grant recipients to 
provide matching funds under certain conditions.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing S. 1650 would cost $823 million 
over the 2008-2012 period. CBO estimates that enacting this 
bill would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.
    S. 1650 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); 
any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result 
from complying with conditions of federal assistance.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 1650 is shown in the following table. 
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted 
near the end of 2007, that the authorized amounts will be 
appropriated near the start of the fiscal year, and that 
outlays will occur at rates similar to other DOC grant 
programs. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
function 370 (commerce and housing credit).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      By fiscal year, in millions of
                                                 dollars--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

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

    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1650 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. The bill would benefit public institutions of 
higher education by authorizing $250 million per year, for 
fiscal years 2008 through 2012, to strengthen their capacity to 
provide instruction in digital network technologies. Any costs 
they might incur would result from complying with conditions of 
federal assistance.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susan Willie; Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact 
on the Private Sector: Justin Hall.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

  In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

                       NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

  The Committee believes that the bill would not subject any 
individuals or businesses affected by the legislation to any 
additional regulation.

                            ECONOMIC IMPACT

  This legislation would not have an adverse impact on the 
Nation. It authorizes funding for digital and wireless network 
technologies related awards to MSIs.

                                PRIVACY

  This legislation would not have a negative impact on the 
personal privacy of individuals.

                               PAPERWORK

  This legislation would require each award recipient to 
provide to the DOC any relevant institutional statistical or 
demographic data as requested by the DOC. Each award recipient 
would be required to submit an annual report to the Secretary 
of the Department of Commerce detailing its use of funding. The 
Secretary would be required to submit to Congress a bi-annual 
report based upon an evaluation of the program including a 
recommendation on the need for continued Federal support of the 
program.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

  This section sets forth the short title of the bill as the 
``Max Cleland Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 
Technology Opportunity Act.''

Section 2. Establishment of office

  This section would establish an office at the DOC that would 
be called the ``Office of Digital and Wireless Network 
Technology'' (Office) to carry out this Act. The Office would 
have two purposes: (1) to strengthen the ability of eligible 
institutions to provide capacity for instruction in digital and 
wireless network technologies; and (2) to strengthen the 
national digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing 
national investment in telecommunications and technology 
infrastructure at eligible institutions.

Section 3. Activities supported

  This section would set forth that a grant, contract, or 
cooperative agreement under this Act may be used to--
          (1) acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking 
        capability, hardware and software, digital network 
        technology, wireless technology, and infrastructure;
          (2) develop and providing educational services, 
        including faculty development, related to science, 
        mathematics, engineering, or technology;
          (3) provide teacher education, library and media 
        specialist training, and preschool and teacher aid 
        certification to individuals who seek to acquire or 
        enhance technology skills in order to use technology in 
        the classroom or instructional process;
          (4) implement joint projects and consortia to provide 
        education regarding technology in the classroom with a 
        State or State education agency, local education 
        agency, community-based organization, national non-
        profit organization, or business, including minority 
        businesses;
          (5) provide professional development in science, 
        mathematics, engineering, or technology to 
        administrators and faculty of eligible institutions 
        with institutional responsibility for technology 
        education;
          (6) provide capacity-building technical assistance to 
        eligible institutions through remote technical support, 
        technical assistance workshops, distance learning, new 
        technologies, and other technological applications;
          (7) foster the use of information communications 
        technology to increase scientific, mathematical, 
        engineering, and technology instruction and research; 
        and
          (8) develop proposals and develop strategic plans for 
        information technology investments.

Section 4. Application and review procedure

  This section would establish an application and review 
process. Subsection (a) would require an eligible institution 
to submit an application to the DOC Secretary in order to 
receive a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement. The 
Secretary, in consultation with the advisory council 
established under subsection (b), would establish application 
acceptance procedures and publish grant notifications and 
statements regarding the fund availability.
  Subsection (b) would require the Secretary to establish an 
advisory council for advising the Secretary on the best 
approaches for involving eligible institutions.
  Subsection (c) would require an institution receiving a 
grant, contract or cooperative agreement to provide relevant 
institutional statistical or demographic data to the Office.
  Subsection (d) would require the Secretary to convene an 
annual meeting of eligible institutions that receive support 
under this program to foster collaboration and capacity-
building activities among eligible institutions and to 
disseminate information and ideas generated by such meetings.

Section 5. Matching requirement

  This section would require that institutions awarded a grant, 
contract, or cooperative agreement make available the lesser of 
25 percent of the amount of the non-Federal award or $500,000. 
The Secretary would be required to waive the matching 
requirement for any institution with no endowment, or an 
endowment worth less than $50,000,000.

Section 6. Limitations

  This section would prohibit an eligible institution with a 
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this Act of 
more than $2,500,000 from receiving another grant, contract, or 
cooperative agreement unless every other eligible institution 
that has applied for a grant, contract, or cooperative 
agreement has received a grant, contract, or cooperative 
agreement.

Section 7. Annual report and evaluation

  This section would require each institution awarded a grant, 
contract, or cooperative agreement, to submit an annual report 
to the Secretary detailing its use of the funding. Also, the 
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, 
would be required to review the reports and evaluate the 
program every two years. Finally, the Secretary would submit a 
report, including recommendations, to Congress based on the 
evaluation.

Section 8. Definitions

  This section would define key terms in this Act.

Section 9. Authorization of appropriations

  This section would authorize appropriations of $250 million 
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out this 
Act.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

  In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as 
reported would make no change to existing law.

                                  
