39–006 

108TH CONGRESS REPT. 108–789 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND 

WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2003 

NOVEMBER 19, 2004.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2801] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 

2801) to establish a digital and wireless network technology program, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 

favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 

as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2 

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 5 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 6 

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 7 

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 8 

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 8 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section) .................................. 9 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 10 

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 13 

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 13 

XI. Compliance With Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 15 

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 15 

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 15 

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 15 

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 15 

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 15 

XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 16 

XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 16 

2 

XIX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 20 

XX. Minority Views ............................................................................................ 21 

XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 23 

AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

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

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM. 

Section 5 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3704) is amended by inserting the following after subsection (f): ‘‘(g) MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPOR- TUNITY 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, cooper- ative agreement, or contract awarded under this subsection— ‘‘(A) to acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking capability, hard- ware 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 develop- ment 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 im- prove 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 

3 

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 

4 

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).’’. 

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Technology Administration of the 

Department of Commerce to carry out section 5(g) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980—

(1) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; 

(2) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; 

(3) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

(4) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(5) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

5 

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

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) the historical experience of Americans of African descent began more than 

5,000 years B.C.E., with notable scientists, mathematicians, and inventors such 

as Imhotep, who is recognized by contemporary historians as the first architect, 

a pioneer in mathematics, an eminent sage and patron of scribes, a respected 

leader among early Egyptian and Greek civilizations, builder of the first pyramid, and the physician upon whose knowledge and teachings about human 

anatomy and the functions of the major organs modern medicine rests; 

(2) African-Americans have earned an undeniable role in the development of 

the culture of this Nation, contributing major inventions and scientific discoveries, among other things, that enrich the quality of life for all mankind; 

(3) the scientific and technological contributions of African-Americans to the 

world are largely absent from history books; 

(4) the ethos of this rich and proud people, descendants of kings and queens, 

has been passed down to generations through whispered tales by a remnant of 

African-American ancestors who understood the relationship between honor, respect, and appreciation of heritage and culture, and the vision and success of 

future generations; 

(5) it is with this spirit that we recognize and celebrate the creative genius 

and contributions of Annie Easley, Sharon J. Barnes, Thomas L. Jennings, Dr. 

Benjamin S. Carson, David Blackwell, David N. Crosthwait, Elijah McCoy, 

Clarence A. Ellis, Phillip Emeagwali, Charles R. Drew, Sarah E. Goode, Granville T. Woods, Lewis H. Latimer, Meredith C. Gourdine, Ernest E. Just, Evelyn 

Boyd Granville, Norbert Rillieux, Mae C. Jemison, George Carruthers, Garret 

A. Morgan, J. Ernest Wilkins, Sarah Boone, Booker T. Washington, and numerous other African-Americans whose great achievements evidence a vast pool of 

untapped intellect; 

(6) education has been the social, economic, and political gatekeeper for African-Americans, and will become increasingly so for students of color desiring to 

participate fully in the scientific and technological innovations of the new millennium; 

(7) although progress has been made in the educational attainment of African-Americans, they remain less likely than whites and Asians to graduate 

from high school, enroll in college, graduate from college, and pursue graduate 

and professional degrees; 

(8) African-Americans represent approximately 12 percent of the population 

in the United States, but only 3 percent of the total science and engineering 

labor force, less than 1 percent of scientists and engineers, 2 percent of doctoral 

scientists and engineers, and 1 quarter of 1 percent of computer scientists; 

(9) if the declining number and percentage of African-American high school 

and college students choosing careers that require undergraduate and advanced 

degrees in science and mathematics continues unabated, the serious shortage 

of African-American scientists, mathematicians, physicians, computer scientists, 

and inventors would cause serious harm to the Nation’s leadership in scientific 

research; 

(10) the dreams and aspirations of too many African-American youth have 

withered and must be revitalized with the message that they descend from a 

proud and noble people who expected and settled for nothing less than excellence in every endeavor, and whose greatness has left an indelible mark on the 

world; 

(11) it is vital that the citizens of this Nation, especially young African-Americans, realize and appreciate the important contributions of their ancestors and 

contemporaries to past and present society; and 

(12) to fulfill the Nation’s commitment to equal opportunity and prosperity for 

every citizen, it is imperative that African-American youth and people of all 

races and ages realize that the fields of science, mathematics, engineering, and 

technology are available and accessible to everyone. 

(b) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND RECOGNITION.—The Congress acknowledges and recognizes the significant achievements and contributions of African-American scientists, mathematicians, and inventors. 

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to assist minority-serving institutions 

in acquiring, and augmenting their use of, digital and wireless netVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:39 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789P1.XXX HR789P1
6 

working technologies to improve the quality and delivery of educational services at their institutions. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Developing an educated and technologically literate workforce is 

an important part of our efforts to maintain our Nation’s preeminence in an increasingly competitive, information-based, global 

economy. Whether technology should be used in schools is no 

longer the issue. Rather the current emphasis is on ensuring that 

technology is available and used effectively to create new opportunities in school and at work. Already, more than half of all workers—from office workers to auto mechanics—use a computer on the 

job, and that number is expected to grow in the near future. If we 

are to tap the full potential of this country and its people, we must 

ensure that all Americans are technically proficient and prepared 

for the 21st century workforce. 

Unfortunately, too many Americans—and minorities in particular—have been raised in an environment without a computer in 

the home, attended poor schools that were neither wired nor 

equipped with 21st century technology, and have been taught by 

educators who may not have had previous experience with computers. Despite a significant federal investment in education technology at the elementary and secondary school levels, a large number of low-income, minority students still have their first exposure 

to computers and the Internet when they arrive on the college campus. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce first documented the disparity between information ‘‘haves’’ and information ‘‘have-nots’’—

the so-called ‘‘digital divide’’—in 1995. More recently, the Department issued a July 2000 report, entitled Falling Through the Net: 

Toward Digital Inclusion, which found that African-Americans, 

Hispanics, and other traditional ‘‘have-not’’ groups were experiencing an access disparity that persisted and, in some cases, widened in recent years. Whites were more likely to have access to the 

Internet from home than African-Americans or Hispanics from any 

location, with African-American and Hispanic households approximately one-third as likely as a household of Asian/Pacific Islander 

descent to have Internet access and roughly two-fifths as likely as 

white households. The 2000 report also found that the gap appeared to be growing wider, with the digital divide increasing 

slightly for African-Americans and Hispanics from their December 

1998 rates. 

The digital divide series prompted the National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO), a non-profit 

public policy and advocacy group, to assess the computing resources, networking and connectivity of its member universities. Of 

NAFEO’s 118 member institutions, 80 Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities (HBCUs) provided input into the study, known as 

the HBCU Technology Assessment Study. Funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the study found that 88 percent of HBCUs 

had access to T–1 lines—approximately 1.5 million bits per second 

(Mbs)—the minimum standard for connectivity and generally considered insufficient to support capabilities beyond Internet and 

World Wide Web connectivity for an institution of any size. Larger 

7 

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 net- working 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 con- nections available to them, some speculated that it had to do with 

finances, lack of strategic planning, faculty motivation, and training. The study also found that none of the participating HBCUs required undergraduate students to own computers and only 15 percent recommended student computer ownership. As a result, the 

vast majority of HBCU students relied on institutional resources to 

connect to the Internet, World Wide Web or other networks, yet 

only 50 percent of the respondents reported providing ‘‘on-demand’’ student access to computing resources. Although the report did not examine the need for an improved technology infrastructure at other minority-serving institutions 

(MSIs), anecdotal information indicates that the problems at other 

MSIs mirror those at the HBCUs. 

MSIs play a unique role in the education of our diverse American workforce. According to recent reports, 21 percent of all college degrees and certificates awarded to African-American, American Indian and Hispanic students are conferred by MSIs. MSIs also help 

underrepresented students succeed in all disciplines, and science, 

mathematics, and engineering in particular. For example, of African-Americans earning bachelor degrees in science, math, engineering or technology fields in 1996, 31 percent received them at 

HBCUs. Similarly, Hispanic-Serving Institutions produced 20 percent of all science, math, engineering or technology bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanics in 1996. MSIs have special expertise in serving their communities, which include large numbers of low-income or first-generation college students. Unlike other, larger institutions of higher education, however, MSIs typically have small or nonexistent endowments and 

few wealthy alumni. As a result, the ability to finance the acquisition and maintenance of the technology that will prepare these students for the workforce is especially challenging for many MSIs. This Act seeks to address the concerns above and provides funding to assist minority-serving institutions in acquiring, and augmenting their use of, digital and wireless networking technologies 

to improve the quality and delivery of educational services at their 

institutions. In particular, the Act is focused on funding activities 

that will improve the technology skills of students, faculty and administrators and narrow the disparity in access to technology. 

IV. HEARING SUMMARY

On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Research of 

the Committee on Science held a hearing to examine the unmet 

technology infrastructure needs of minority-serving institutions 

(MSIs). Witnesses provided comments on and made recommendations for additions to H.R. 2183, the Minority Serving Institution 

Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003, introduced by Representative J. Randy Forbes. The Subcommittee reVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:39 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789P1.XXX HR789P1
8 

ceived testimony from Senator George Allen, sponsor of S. 196, the 

Senate companion to H.R. 2183, and Representatives Edolphus 

Towns, sponsor of H.R. 2272, similar bipartisan legislation introduced in the House of Representatives. The Subcommittee also 

heard testimony from representatives of MSIs and associations of 

such institutions, including the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, the Hispanic Association of Colleges 

and Universities, and the United Negro College Fund. These witnesses discussed the technology infrastructure needs at MSIs as 

well as efforts by such institutions to address their technology 

needs. Finally, the Subcommittee heard from the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) Director. Dr. Rita Colwell described her agency’s 

efforts to expand access to women and minorities in science, mathematics, engineering and technology education and research and announced a new initiative to provide outreach to MSIs. She also expressed opposition to the placement of the program in the bill at 

NSF. 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On July 21, 2003, Representatives J. Randy Forbes and 

Edolphus Towns reintroduced the modified text of H.R. 2183 as 

H.R. 2801, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 

Technology Opportunity Act of 2003, a bill to build the technology 

infrastructure at MSIs. 

The Full Committee on Science met on July 22, 2003 to consider 

the bill. A clarifying amendment, which provided that instruction 

in science, mathematics, engineering and technology subjects 

should be among those in which educators are able to receive training in the use of technology, was offered by Chairman Boehlert. 

The amendment was adopted by voice vote. An amendment was offered by Ms. Woolsey, on behalf of Ms. Johnson, to express the 

Sense of the Congress on the contributions of African American 

mathematicians, scientists and inventors. The amendment was 

adopted by voice vote. An amendment was offered by Mr. Honda 

to create a new category of minority institutions for Asian Americans. By unanimous consent, Mr. Honda withdrew the amendment. 

Mr. Hall moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 

2801, as amended, with the recommendation that the bill as 

amended do pass, that the staff be instructed to make technical 

and conforming changes to the bill as amended and prepare the 

legislative report, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps 

to bring the bill before the House for consideration. With a quorum 

present, the motion was agreed to by voice vote. 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

• Establishes the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Program within the Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce to assist MSIs in acquiring and augmenting their use of networking and information 

technology. Funds may be used to acquire equipment; develop and 

provide training, education and professional development programs 

related to the use of technology; provide teacher education, including pre-service and in-service professional development, library and 

media specialist training and pre-school and teacher aid certifiVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:39 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789P1.XXX HR789P1
9 

cation in technology; obtain technical assistance; and foster the use 

of technology to improve research and education. 

• Establishes an Advisory Council, composed of representatives 

of MSIs, minority businesses and others with expertise in technology, to help encourage maximum participation among eligible 

institutions in the program. 

• Establishes review panels, selected by the Under Secretary, 

with, among others, representatives of MSIs and others who are 

knowledgeable about MSIs and technology issues, to judge the 

quality and merit of the proposals, including the extent to which 

the institution can effectively use the funds. Requires the Under 

Secretary to consider the recommendations of a review panel in determining whether to award or deny funds. 

• Requires matching funds of 25 percent or $500,000, whichever 

is less, for institutions with endowments of more than $50,000,000. 

Requires awards to be granted on a priority basis to those with a 

demonstrated need for assistance and, to the extent practicable, to 

all types of institutions eligible for assistance. 

• Requires institutions to report annually to the Under Secretary 

on their use of the funds. 

• Requires the Under Secretary to contract with the National 

Academy of Public Administration to conduct an independent assessment once every three years on the effectiveness of the program in improving the education and training as well as access to 

and familiarity with technology for students, faculty and staff. Also 

requires recommendations on the continuing need for federal support. Upon completion, requires the results of the independent assessment to be transmitted to the Congress. 

• Authorizes $250 million for fiscal year 2004 and all subsequent 

years through fiscal year 2008. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION) 

Section 1. Short title 

The ‘‘Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act.’’

Section 2. Establishment of program 

Establishes a Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 

Technology Opportunity Program within the Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce to assist eligible institutions in acquiring, and augmenting the use of, digital and wireless 

networking technologies to improve the quality and delivery of educational services at minority-serving institutions (MSIs). 

Funds may be used to (1) acquire equipment, instrumentation, 

networking capability, hardware and software, digital network 

technology, wireless technology, 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 

10 

Under Secretary, consistent with the recommendations of a review 

panel and in consultation with the advisory panel, to establish 

other application requirements. 

Requires the establishment of an advisory council, which must include representatives of minority institutions, minority businesses and technology experts, to help the Under Secretary encourage maximum participation by eligible institutions and to provide 

advice on the procedures to review applications. Requires the establishment of review panels, which must include representatives 

of MSIs and others who are knowledgeable about MSIs and technology issues, to judge the quality and merit of proposals and the 

extent to which they can effectively and successfully utilize the 

funds. Requires the Under Secretary to take into consideration the 

recommendations of a review panel in awarding grants. Requires 

the Under Secretary to convene an annual meeting of MSIs receiving grants to foster collaboration and capacity building. Requires a non-federal match equal to 25 percent of the grant or $500,000, whichever is less, for institutions with an endowment of 

more than $50,000,000. Limits institutions that receive grants that 

exceed $2,500,000 from receiving another grant during the authorization. 

Allows MSIs to seek funds as part of a consortium, but requires 

grants to be awarded to the MSIs only. Allows grants for developing strategic plans. Requires a priority in funding for institutions 

with the greatest need for assistance and requires that awards are 

made to all types of eligible institutions. Requires institutions to report annually to the Under Secretary on their use of the funds. Requires the Under Secretary to contract 

with the National Academy of Public Administration to conduct an 

independent assessment once every three years on the effectiveness 

of the program in improving education and training, as well as access to, and familiarity with technology for students, faculty and 

staff. Also requires recommendations on the continuing need for 

federal support. Upon completion, requires the results of the independent assessment to be transmitted to the Congress. Defines terms. 

Section 3. Authorization of appropriations 

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

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

The Committee believes that our continued economic growth and 

competitiveness depend in large part on advances in science and 

technology and our ability to produce a technologically sophisticated workforce. Yet the Committee has concluded that, despite the 

growing federal investment in programs designed to strengthen 

MSIs, the disparity in access to, and use of, technology between 

MSIs and other institutions of higher education limits the ability 

of MSIs to graduate technically literate students and contribute 

positively to the fields of science, mathematics, engineering and 

technology. 

The program authorized by this Act is designed not only to acquire technology but also to ensure that the new technology is used 

to improve education. In addition, this Act provides opportunities 

11 

for MSIs to determine the best strategies to build and maintain 

their technology infrastructures through annual meetings with 

other grantees. 

As initially conceived, this program was placed at the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Committee strongly opposed that 

placement because the mission of the agency does not include the 

acquisition of technology that is unrelated to scientific research. 

Moreover, the Committee was also concerned that the placement of 

the program at NSF would put other education and outreach programs at risk, including those designed to increase the participation of women and minorities in the sciences. The Committee believes placement of the program within the Technology Administration at the Department of Commerce, as reflected in H.R. 2801, as 

amended, is a better fit. 

While the Committee believes that the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Act of 2003 will help provide 

important seed money to address the technology needs of MSIs, the 

legislation itself is not a ‘‘silver bullet.’’ The Committee recognizes 

that the effective use of technology in educational settings is expensive. It will take a coordinated effort—one that involves institutions, governments, and the private sector—to motivate and train 

more students to bridge the technology divide. To that end, the 

Committee urges MSIs to adopt and implement strategies that 

have been successful—such as working in collaboration with businesses and other institutions of higher education—to use its technology resources efficiently and maintain its infrastructure in an 

appropriate manner. For that reason, the Committee included the 

development of a long-term strategic plan for the acquisition and 

use of technology as an allowable use of funds under this program 

and urges MSIs to take advantage of this provision to ensure that 

limited resources are used effectively. 

The Committee anticipates that many MSIs receiving grants 

under this program will use the funds to acquire instrumentation, 

enhance infrastructure and/or strengthen existing digital wireless 

networking technology at their institutions, but expects such funds 

to also be used to improve teaching and learning for students, faculty and administrators. In particular, the Committee emphasizes 

the special contribution that technology can make in strengthening 

academic programs, including mathematics, science, engineering 

and technology and teacher preparation, at eligible institutions. 

For the purposes of the application and review procedures, the 

Committee expects the Under Secretary to ensure that members of 

review panels include representatives of MSIs and others who are 

knowledgeable about the technology needs of the eligible institutions. The Committee believes that the review panels should include individuals who are conversant with the particular mission 

of MSIs. In so doing, the Committee hopes to encourage greater 

participation among MSIs and their representatives on the review 

panel and in the program, while guarding against conflicts of interest. 

The Committee believes that the review panels serve an important role in providing advice to the Under Secretary about the 

quality and merit of an application submitted by MSIs. To ensure 

that the Under Secretary receives the best possible advice, it is the 

Committee’s view that these panels should include a diverse range 

12 

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 minorityserving institutions) experts in information technology education 

and training, hardware, networking, both in academic and industrial settings; and Chief Information Officers from academic institutions and industry. 

The Committee requires the Under Secretary to convene an annual meeting of grantees. It is the Committee’s view that this 

should serve as an opportunity not just to foster collaboration and 

capacity building, as required by the program, but also to build relationships between the Department of Commerce and the MSI 

community. 

With respect to the matching requirement, the Committee urges 

all applicants—including those with little or no endowment—to 

seek additional funds from non-Federal sources, including business, 

to maximize the investment in technology and technology education 

at their institution. The Committee believes this is important to 

maintaining the technological edge of the recipient institutions and 

to keeping faculty and students current after the Federal contribution expires. Yet, the Committee appreciates the financial circumstances of many MSIs and, for that reason, waives the required 

match for those with an endowment equal to or less than $50 million. 

In making awards, the Committee seeks to ensure that all eligible institutions are able to share in the Federal funding. For that 

reason, the Committee limited the number of grant funds in excess 

of $2.5 million that any one institution could receive during the 5- 

year authorization. It is not the Committee’s intention to establish 

a maximum grant. Rather, the Committee seeks to ensure that the 

full range of MSIs—urban and rural, public and private, 2-year and 

4-year—are able to compete effectively for grants under this program, with priority given to institutions with a demonstrated need 

for assistance. 

Because there is not sufficient data on how best to help MSIs 

catch up to other institutions of higher education, the Committee 

believes that accurate reporting on the use of funds is an important 

requirement of the program. Therefore, each grantee must annually report on its use of the grant, and the Under Secretary must 

contract with the National Academy of Public Administration to 

conduct an independent assessment of the program. The Committee expects these reports both to inform the efforts of MSIs and 

other institutions of higher education on how best to improve access to technology and to evaluate the effectiveness of the program 

in improving education and training at MSIs. 

During the full committee markup, some Committee members 

expressed concern about other populations and institutions that 

might also benefit from assistance under this program. The Committee recognizes that other institutions of higher education with 

unmet technology needs also serve statistically significant numbers 

and percentages of minority and low-income students and appreciates the fact that the digital divide includes disparities in socioeconomic status and educational attainment. For that reason, the 

Committee was careful to include so called ‘‘majority-minority instiVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:39 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789P1.XXX HR789P1
13 

tutions’’, 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 lowincome Asian American students at institutions of higher education 

and the types of institutions that may benefit from this new designation. To that end, the Committee directs the Under Secretary, 

in consultation with the Department of Education, to determine the 

number of institutions serving significant Asian American populations. The Committee stresses that race is but one factor in determining the eligibility of an institution under this Act and seeks to 

ensure that Federal funds are not inappropriately targeted to otherwise wealthy, digitally well-connected institutions. 

IX. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on 

Science prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section 

X of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). 

H.R. 2801 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the 

sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 2801 does 

authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the 

Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained 

in Section X of this report. 

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 25, 2003. 

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, Chairman, Committee on Science, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2801, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 

2003. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Melissa Zimmerman 

and Jenny Lin. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT A. SUNSHINE

(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director). 

Enclosure. 

14 

H.R. 2801—Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Tech- nology Opportunity Act of 2003 

Summary: H.R. 2801 would create a new grant program for edu- cational institutions that serve minority students within the Department of Commerce’s (DOC’s) Technology Administration. Eligi- ble institutions could use the funds to improve instructional capabilities and acquire digital and wireless communication and information technology. The bill would authorize the appropriation of 

$250 million for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for this program and would require grant recipients to provide matching funds 

under certain conditions. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO esti- mates that implementing H.R. 2801 would cost $823 million over 

the 2004–2008 period. CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have no effect on direct spending or revenues. H.R. 2801 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector man- dates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Any costs incurred by state, local, or tribal governments would be 

subject to conditions of aid and thus voluntary. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budg- etary impact of H.R. 2801 is shown in the following table. For this 

estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and that the outlays will 

occur at rates similar to those of other DOC programs. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 370 (commerce and 

housing credit). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level .................................................................... 250 250 250 250 250 

Estimated Outlays ..................................................................... 30 130 200 228 235 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

2801 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

UMRA. Any costs incurred by state, local, or tribal governments 

would be the result of complying with federal grant conditions and 

would be voluntary. The bill would primarily benefit educational 

institutions—including public institutions—that serve minorities, 

members of Native American Tribes, and disadvantaged students. 

Assuming that approximately 65 percent of such institutions are 

public or tribal institutions, H.R. 2801 would authorize grants to 

state, local, or tribal governments that would total about $160 million per year. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains no new 

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Previous CBO estimate: On March 18, 2003, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for S. 196, the Digital and Wireless Network Technology Program Act of 2003, as ordered reported by the Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on March 

13, 2003. The two pieces of legislation are similar, and our cost estimates are the same. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Melissa Zimmerman and 

Jenny Lin; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah 

Puro; and Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

15 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Di- rector for Budget Analysis. 

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

H.R. 2801 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee on Science’s oversight findings and recommenda- tions are reflected in the body of this report. 

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of H.R. 2801 are to assist minority serving institutions in acquiring, and 

augmenting their use of, digital and wireless networking technologies to improve the quality and delivery of educational services 

at their institutions. 

The Committee requires that all of the programs authorized under the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Networking Opportunity Act be awarded on a competitive basis. Informed by the recommendations of a review panel, this process is 

expected to ensure that funds are awarded to build the technology 

infrastructure at the full range of minority serving institutions, 

with a priority for demonstrated need for assistance. While improving the technology infrastructure is a key component of this legislation, it is imperative that this technology be used to improve the 

teaching and learning of students, faculty and administrators. In 

fact, all efforts to acquire this technology should be supported with 

parallel efforts to use such technology to improve the quality and 

delivery of educational services at the minority serving institutions. Given the limited amount of data on the specific technology needs of many minority serving institutions—and the significant investment authorized by this program—the bill requires all minority serving institutions receiving assistance under this program to 

be subjected to a rigorous assessment and evaluation of how the 

money is spent in order to collect and disseminate information on 

best practices. 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 2801. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

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

agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another existing advisory 

committee. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 2801 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

16 

XVII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL

LAW

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

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (and new matter is printed in 

italic existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT 

OF 1980 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5. COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS

TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary, shall establish a Minority Serving Institution Digital 

and Wireless Technology Opportunity Program to assist eligible 

institutions in acquiring, and augmenting their use of, digital 

and wireless networking technologies to improve the quality 

and delivery of educational services at eligible institutions. (2) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—An eligible institution may use a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract awarded under this 

subsection— (A) to acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking 

capability, hardware and software, digital network technology, wireless technology, and infrastructure to further 

the objective of the Program described in paragraph (1); 

(B) to develop and provide training, education, and professional development programs, including faculty development, to increase the use of, and usefulness of, digital and 

wireless networking technology; 

(C) to provide teacher education, including the provision 

of preservice teacher training and in-service professional 

development at eligible institutions, library and media specialist training, and preschool and teacher aid certification 

to individuals who seek to acquire or enhance technology 

skills in order to use digital and wireless networking technology in the classroom or instructional process, including 

instruction in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology subjects; 

(D) to obtain capacity-building technical assistance, including through remote technical support, technical assistance workshops, and distance learning services; and 

(E) to foster the use of digital and wireless networking 

technology to improve research and education, including 

scientific, mathematics, engineering, and technology instruction. 

(3) APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES.—

17 

(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. 

18 

(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 efVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:39 Dec 01, 2004 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR789P1.XXX HR789P1
19 

fectiveness 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)). 

20 

(iii) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the meaning given 

the term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001). 

(iv) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—The term ‘‘local 

educational agency’’ has the meaning given the term in 

section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801). 

(v) MINORITY BUSINESS.—The term ‘‘minority business’’ includes HUBZone small business concerns (as 

defined in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 

U.S.C. 632(p)). 

(vi) MINORITY INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘‘minority individual’’ means an American Indian, Alaskan Native, 

Black (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic (including persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban and Central or 

South American origin), or Pacific Islander individual. (vii) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning 

given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801). (viii) STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—The term ‘‘State 

educational agency’’ has the meaning given the term in 

section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801). 

* * * * * * * 

XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On July 22, 2003, a quorum being present, the Committee on 

Science favorably reported the Minority Serving Institution Digital 

and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act, by a voice vote, and recommended its enactment. 

(21) 

XX. MINORITY VIEWS 

We commend the Committee on Science for reporting H.R. 2801 

with broad bipartisan support. This bill creates a technology partnership between the Federal Government and America’s MinorityServing Institutions (MSIs) to build a bridge across the digital divide for this group of institutions and the students they serve. 

Achieving the goals of this legislation may be the most significant 

challenge facing the Nation and these colleges and universities in 

the 21st century. 

The Nation’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

(HBCUs), and its other MSIs offer a wealth of human resources 

and the necessary talent to continue to strengthen and benefit our 

country. These institutions are noted for their consistent standards 

of excellence and outstanding achievements. It is a simple fact that 

they produce the lion’s share of minority public school teachers, in 

addition to their noteworthy production of minority scientists and 

engineers. Collectively and individually, these colleges and universities are committed to providing the highest quality education for 

students who more often than not, do not have the social, educational, and financial advantages of other college-bound populations. 

As is the case with all institutions of higher education, minorityserving institutions operate in an increasingly competitive academic and technology-focused environment. Campus-wide, faculty, 

staff and students are expected to conduct business and engage in 

academic and research pursuits using state-of-the-art facilities and 

technology. Too frequently, MSIs lack the institutional resources to 

acquire and provide the technology infrastructure and instrumentation necessary to train faculty to fully integrate technology 

throughout the curriculum, and to provide the highest quality 

learning experiences for their students. Moreover, they also could 

benefit from additional resources to train staff to administer and 

maintain digital, wireless and telecommunication systems that support the academic and day-to-day operations. 

Looking at the present day and the future workforce, we cannot 

underestimate the value of the development of minority human 

capital to the country’s overall success. Strengthening the technology infrastructure at MSIs is critical given the role these institutions must play in training individuals who represent a growing 

percentage of our postsecondary student population and the workforce that is required to be technologically literate and skilled. For 

this reason, H.R. 2801 is all the more important in ensuring not 

only the future prosperity of America, but also in raising the educational expectations of students needing the skill sets to be competitive to succeed in today’s world. 

Notwithstanding the extraordinary merit of H.R. 2801, we are 

concerned by one aspect of the bill, as reported. It specifies that the 

22 

Secretary of Commerce shall establish the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity program by 

‘‘acting through the Under Secretary [for Technology]’’. More commonly, the agency head, in this case the Secretary, is designated 

as the person authorized to carry out a program authorized by Congress. The Secretary has the discretion to delegate authority to administer an authorized program. Designating a lesser department 

official—whose title or position might be subsequently eliminated 

or whose title may be changed—could place the program in administrative limbo or at risk. Some might even interpret the designation of a lesser departmental official as undermining the significance of this important program. I will work to modify the bill as 

it moves forward in the legislative process to explicitly charge the 

Secretary to establish the program. 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. 

SHEILA JACKSON-LEE. 

(23) 

XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP

The Committee met, pursuant to other business, in room 2318 of 

the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood D. Boehlert 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The next item on the docket is H.R. 2801. 

I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Research be 

discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 2801 and ask for 

its immediate consideration at full Committee and, without objection, it is so ordered. 

We will now consider the bill H.R. 2801, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003, 

and now, it is my pleasure to recognize one of the driving forces 

behind this very important and significant legislation, Mr. Forbes, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, full access to technology has become a standard, not abundance, in how 

we communicate and do our jobs every day. Right now, 60 percent 

of all jobs require information technology skills and information 

technology jobs pay significantly higher than jobs in non-technology-related fields, yet minority-serving institutions often lack 

the basic information and digital technology infrastructure needed 

to provide their students the necessary skills and access to compete 

and quality for America’s best-paying jobs. 

H.R. 2801 would help provide essential resources to address the 

technology gap that exists at many minority-serving institutions by 

providing $250 million in grants to historically black colleges and 

universities, Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges and 

universities. 

The program would offer opportunities to these institutions for 

activities such as computer acquisition, campus wiring and technology training. Each of these activities is an important step toward bridging the digital divide. A recent article published in the 

Chronicle of Higher Education highlights the need for this legislation. At the University of Richmond, there are 62 people to assist 

with the development, use and maintenance of campus information 

technology. At Virginia Union, an historically black college with 

half the enrollment of the University of Richmond, there is a computing staff of only 4 for the entire school. At Virginia State University, which is located in my district, only 10 percent of the students own computers, while 96 percent of the students own computers at the University of Richmond. 

A study completed by the Department of Commerce and the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education indicates that no historically black college or university requires computer ownership for their undergraduate students. Thirteen 

HBCUs reported having no students owning their own personal 

computer. Over 70 percent of students at historically black colleges 

24 

and universities rely on the college or university to provide computers, but only 50 percent of those universities can provide their 

students with access to computers. 

While this study did not address the needs of other MSIs, there 

is anecdotal evidence that other MSIs have the same problems at 

those found at HBCUs. This legislation is a start in the right direction. By addressing the technology deficiencies that exist at minority-serving institutions and increasing access to technology, we can 

provide our young people with the tools to success in college and 

life. I would like to thank Senator Allen and our Senate colleagues 

who passed similar legislation 97 to nothing. I would also like to 

thank Congressman Ed Towns for all of his hard work on this legislation, and Mr. Chairman, I thank you for scheduling this bill for 

markup and for the staff for the hard work they put in to get us 

to this point. 

I urge all our members to support this worthwhile legislation. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. And thank you not only for your hard 

work, but for your leadership. It is really appreciated. 

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Smith. First, I want to recognize—is 

it a parliamentary question? 

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. It is a comment, Mr. Chairman, for the 

record, that you indicated that your were discharging our Research 

Subcommittee, as I understood it, of the bill. Actually, the Research 

Subcommittee held hearings on a similar bill, 2183. This bill is new 

legislation that takes into consideration a compromise language 

that was agreed to on the bill. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you for that intervention. I do appreciate it. The records is clarified. The Chair recognizes Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

thank Mr. Forbes for carrying this this particular time. For the last 

three or four years, I worked with Mr. Towns and Senator Allen 

on this legislation, and would like very much to have the two 

pieces of legislation combined so that Mr. Towns can get his rightful credit. 

Since we were able to reach an agreement that led to this very 

bill that we are marking up today, there is an important issue that 

needs to be addressed. Throughout the proposed bill, references are 

made to ‘‘acting through the Undersecretary’’ or to ‘‘Undersecretary’’ as a primary official in the Department of Commerce, who 

will administer the Minority-Serving Institutions Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Program. The Secretary of Commerce 

is the only Cabinet official and Constitutionally-authorized official 

that can administer programs in the Department of Commerce. 

Traditionally, the Agency head, in this case, the Secretary, is 

designated as the person authorized to carry out the program authorized by the Congress. Following enactment of the appropriate 

legislation, the Secretary in his discretion could delegate authority 

to administer the authorized program. We see no need to deviate 

from the standard procedure. In fact, designating a lesser Cabinet 

official, whose title or position might be subsequently eliminated 

and whose title may be changed, could place the program in administrative limbo or at risk. 

25 

Some might even interpret the designation of a lesser departmental official undermining the significance of this important program. All references to the Undersecretary I suggest be changed to 

Secretary. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for expeditiously calling this for a markup. I am pleased that you have 

agreed to amend this bill so that it may include my resolution honoring the African-American scientist, and I recommend to my colleagues, if they—if he wishes to correct this, the approval—favorably approval of this legislation. Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Without objection, 

all members may place opening statements in the records at this 

point. 

[The statements follow:] 

STATEMENT BY HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you called this markup today on such an important 

piece of legislation. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I speak in support 

of it’s favorable consideration by the committee today. 

Minority serving institutions will prepare a growing portion of the future science 

and technology workforce, simply because demographics dictate that minority students will comprise a greater and greater share of the Nation’s college-aged population. 

It is in the national interest to ensure that minority serving institutions have the 

capability to provide a quality education for their students. This includes the presence of an important infrastructure capable of supporting distance learning, research collaborations with partner institutions, and remote access to educational resources and national research facilities. 

The legislation we will markup today provides funding grants to minority serving 

institutions for information technology upgrades and for training faculty and staff 

to use the technology effectively in support of their education and research activities. 

I am very happy that my colleagues, Congressmen Forbes and Town, were able 

to reach an agreement that led to this very bill we are marking up today. However, 

there is an important issue with this bill that need to be addressed. 

Throughout the proposed bill references are made to ‘‘acting through the Under 

Secretary’’ or to the ‘‘Under Secretary,’’ as the primary official in the Department 

of Commerce who will administer the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity program. The Secretary of Commerce is the only cabinet official and constitutionally authorized official that can administer programs in 

the Department of Commerce. Traditionally, the agency head, in this case the Secretary, is designated as the person authorized to carry out a program authorized 

by the Congress. Following enactment of appropriate legislation, the Secretary, in 

his discretion, could delegate authority to administer the authorized program. We 

see no need to deviate from this standard procedure. In fact, designating a lesser 

cabinet official—whose title or position might be subsequently eliminated or whose 

title may be changed—could place the program in administrative limbo or at risk. 

Some might even interpret the designation of a lesser departmental official as undermining the significance of this important program. All references to ‘‘the Under 

Secretary’’ should be changed to ‘‘Secretary.’’

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for expeditiously calling this markup. 

I am pleased that you have agreed to amend this bill so that it may include my 

resolution honoring the African American Scientist. I recommend H.R. 2801 to my 

colleagues and seek their approval to favorably report the legislation to the house. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. Today, the House Science Committee is considering six bills for 

mark-up. Most are non-controversial and receive wide bipartisan support. 

However, I have strong reservations regarding H.R. 1085, the NASA Flexibility 

Act of 2003. I believe we must wait for recommendations and guidance from the 

Gehman Commission that will address management issues. If we are going to address the problems concerning NASA, we need to take into account the goals and 

vision of NASA and manned space flight. I understand that NASA needs to do more 

26 

to attract and retain the best possible workforce; however, I believe we can assist 

NASA by waiting to hear what recommendations the Gehman Commission makes 

so we can address all the management problems affecting NASA and its workforce. 

I believe we must also continue to review NASA’s existing workforce authority and 

why it is underutilized. 

Mr. Chairman, instead of rushing to complete this significant legislation, I believe 

we must take a step back and review all our options before moving forward on legislation that does not address the problem. 

Aside from H.R. 1085, I believe the other pieces of legislation have been considered in a bipartisan fashion and expand programs in numerous agencies. For example, H.R. 2692, the United States Fire Administration (USFA) Authorization Act of 

2003, authorizes funding for USFA activities, such as training, fire research and 

public education over the next three years. Over the last three decades, America’s 

fire safety record has significantly improved. However, there are still opportunities 

for further improvements in our fire safety record, such as encouraging the use of 

sprinkler systems in homes. HR 2692 will lead us in the right direction. As a member of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am proud to support this legislation. 

Further, I am glad the House Science Committee is moving forward on the FAA 

Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2003. As a conferee to the FAA 

bill for the Science Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues to enhance the research and development programs as laid out in the legislation before 

this committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee for all their hard work on these 

important issues and look forward today’s proceedings. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today takes a critical step toward ensuring that 

all of our nation’s young people have access to the education that will make them 

the leaders of tomorrow. I was pleased to cosponsor this legislation, after working 

with my colleagues and with Dr. Fred Humphries of NAFEO and Ms. Stephanie 

Myers to make it all it needs to be. I commend Congressman Forbes and Congressman Towns for their leadership on this issue, and you and Ranking Member Hall 

for moving this bill so expeditiously toward the Floor. 

It is good to see improving the computing infrastructure at our minority serving 

institutions (MSIs) getting the attention and expertise it deserves. This is an excellent piece of legislation that acknowledges the profound nature of the digital divide, 

and puts forth the resources necessary to start to bridge it. The digital divide separates the nation’s minority serving institutions from other universities, but more importantly, it separates them from the vast stores of information, of data archived 

around the world, and separates them from potential collaborators and students as 

well. I applaud the other body for voting unanimously 97–0 to pass the Allen bill, 

which will set aside $1.2 billion over the next 5 years at the NSF to tackle this enormous problem. I am glad to see the Science Committee showing the same commitment. 

This is a classic chicken and egg problem. Without excellent state-of-the-art computing and networking infrastructure, our HBCUs, tribal colleges, Hispanic universities, and those serving other minority groups, will never be able to place their students on the cutting edge, ready to take leadership positions in their respective 

fields. They will never be able to compete with richer universities for grant money 

for the big research programs. Of course, without that grant money, and without 

rich and powerful alumni, they will never be able to afford to purchase the infrastructure they need. We must break this cycle that is locking up the potential of 

these great institutions and their students. 

Better connectivity will also let the world tap into the great expertise and resources that have been generated in the HBCUs and other MSIs over the years. 

I am pleased that several provisions that I discussed with Dr. Humphries in the 

hearing a few weeks ago here in the Science Committee were finally incorporated 

into this bill. Specifically, I am referring to the peer review provisions that will ensure that those people making decisions of what institutions receive grants, will 

have an appreciation and understanding of the challenges and capabilities of our nation’s minority serving institutions. 

I hope that our colleagues here in the House display the same level of commitment to excellence in education and research as those in the Senate, and will support the bill that comes out of this Committee. If so, I am confident that this bill 

27 

will enable our minority students and researchers to drive forward the march of 

science and technology, and not be left behind by it. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 

considered as read and opened to amendment at any point, and 

that the members proceed with the amendments in the order of the 

roster. 

Before we go to the amendments, without objection, so ordered. 

I will recognize Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you commented, this 

bill was considered by the Research Committee. The original bill 

asked that this be operated by the National Science Foundation. 

The Research Subcommittee decided that was not appropriate, and 

that the—a better place for it would be in TA in the Department 

of Commerce. And since that is under the jurisdiction of my Subcommittee, this bill should have gone to my Subcommittee. 

However, in view of the desire to get it out rapidly, we simply 

worked very intensely, and I want to thank the staff of the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee for their spending many hours in the past week to try to get it in shape to fit in 

the Department of Commerce, and I am pleased that we were able 

to work this out. 

It is very important to recognize that information technology is 

a crucial skill for everyone in our workforce. Up to 30 percent of 

U.S. jobs require significant information technology skills. It is imperative that all students have access and be properly educated in 

information technology. However, many minority-serving institutions lack the infrastructure, technical capacity and training to provide their students with core competencies in information technology skills. 

These minority students and women are a vast, untapped talent 

pool that we must support and cultivate, especially in the science 

and engineering areas, and I have been saying for years that America is the only company that throws away about half of its potential 

science and engineering workforce because it fails to tap the talents 

of women and minorities, much more so than any other nation 

does, and we must emulate other nations and be equal opportunity 

on this score. 

I would like to thank the sponsors of the bill, Mr. Forbes and 

Senator Allen, as well as the Committee Chairman, Mr. Boehlert, 

for working with us as we attempted to address this digital divide 

issue. I would also like to thank them for working with me to 

strengthen the program by adding a provision to support information technology training for pre-service and end service teachers in 

the science, mathematics, engineering and technology fields within 

these institutions, and unfortunately, that portion was left out of 

the bill, but I believe the Chairman is offering an amendment to 

correct that oversight. 

That is also a reason that I support the entire bill, because the 

jobs of the future are going to require a basic knowledge of science 

and mathematics, and if we don’t pass this bill and implement it, 

we are once again depriving minorities of an opportunity for those 

good jobs. 

28 

Another aspect of the bill is ensuring that expert review panels 

will consider quality and merit in awarding the grants under this 

program. This is a very expensive program. We are talking about 

$250 million a year for 4 years, and that is a lot of money. The 

original version of the bill did not have adequate review and evaluation, and so we included this aspect, also ensuring that an independent assessment by the National Academy of Public Administration will evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the program 

in improving the IT education of students and faculty at the participating institutions. 

I do want to offer one word of caution. Today, on the floor, we 

are considering the Commerce, State and Justice Appropriations 

Bill. The—once again, the Commerce Department is suffering 

under this bill, particularly the scientific aspects of it, because too 

much money is being taken away to fund the Justice Department 

in view of our responsibilities with homeland security and the fight 

against terrorism. No one objects to fighting the terrorism and 

funding the Justice Department, but the funding in the Commerce 

Department is simply not adequate, and 70 percent of the Justice 

Department budget is concerned with science. If we add this burden on them, we must collectively ensure that the appropriators 

provide the money for this, otherwise, the money simply will not 

be there. The Commerce Department does not have spare change, 

let alone $250 million a year, and so, if we really want to make this 

bill work, we are really going to have to work with the appropriations process to make certain that the funding is provided. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. The gentleman 

from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon. 

Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I want to congratulate 

the distinguished Member from Virginia for an outstanding piece 

of legislation. I solidly and completely, enthusiastically support this 

legislation. 

In our region of Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Maryland, we are organizing our minority-focused institutions, led by 

Cheney University and Lincoln University, which are right near 

my district, to involve themselves in a greater technology initiative. 

This legislation will help lay the foundation for that. It encourages 

the private sector to become involved, which we are doing, and so 

I think the gentleman is right on the mark, and I would echo the 

comments of Vern Ehlers that we have to work the appropriation 

process now to get some funding on the table to implement the 

ideas in this bill . 

Chairman BOEHLERT. And we are all committed to that proposition. I thank you. If no one else wishes to be heard, the first 

amendment on the roster is the manager’s amendment, which I 

will offer. The amendment has been distributed. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 2801, offered by Mr. Boehlert. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered. Let me—plain and 

simple, this amendment is designed to clarify that teacher training 

in the use of technology in the classroom should include instruction 

in science, mathematics, engineering and technology subjects. 

29 

Right to the point, plain and simple. Anyone seek recognition to 

discuss that? If not, the question is on the amendment. All those 

in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is passed. 

Anyone else seek recognition for the purpose of amending the 

bill? 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment after this. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank 

you for your patience and your indulgence also. I commend the 

offerers of this bill for the work towards the worthy goal of providing opportunities to assist minority-serving institutions in acquiring and augmenting their use of digital and wireless networking technologies to improve the quality and delivery of education services at eligible institutions. 

The bill we are marking up today lists a number of classes of eligible institutions as defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

to wit, historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving 

institutions, tribal colleges, Alaskan Native serving institutions 

and Native Hawaiian serving institutions. 

Unfortunately, there is—there is currently not a definition of 

Asian-American and Pacific Islander serving institutions in the 

Higher Education Act. H.R. 333, introduced by my colleague, Mr. 

Wu, and myself, which was originally introduced by Mr. Underwood in the 107th Congress, would amend the Higher Education 

Act to create such a category. 

Since this bill has not been enacted into law, we must offer 

amendments such as the one that we have today to include these 

institutions among those served by worthy programs such as this 

one. 

Our amendment defines for the purposes of this program AsianAmerican and Pacific Islander serving institutions that would be 

eligible to apply for grant created by this program. I recognize that 

there are several issues that this category brings up. If we simply 

define such institution as having a certain percentage of student 

population comprised of Asian-American and Pacific Islander students, we open the door to many institutions that, quite frankly, 

do not require the assistance of this program that this program is 

designed to provide. 

To try to address this problem, we added an income qualification 

to the definition. However, this will not address another concern 

that members have expressed to me that our amendment may be 

interpreted as changing the Higher Education Act, which is beyond 

this Committee’s jurisdiction. To achieve this goal, what we really 

need to do is to advance our bill H.R. 333 in the Education Committee, and so I will be working towards that. 

I do believe that the bill now offers some flexibility on the part 

of the Secretary to consider institutions not explicitly listed in the 

bill, and I hope that we can work with members of both the majority and the minority parties on report language and I would seek 

the cooperation of the Chair that we would express, that the sentiment that there are some institutions that serve Asian-Americans 

and Pacific Islanders that this bill will eventually encompass. 

30 

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment with the understanding I will be working together and wordsmithing the report language. [Statement of Michael Honda:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE HONDA

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the Desk. 

I commend the authors of this bill for their work towards the worthy goal of pro- viding opportunities to assist minority serving institutions in acquiring and augmenting their use of digital and wireless networking technologies to improve the 

quality and delivery of educational services at eligible institutions. The bill we are marking up today lists a number of classes of eligible institutions as defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965 (as amended)—Historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges, Alaska Native serving institutions, and Native Hawaiian serving institutions. Unfortunately, there is currently not a definition of Asian American and Pacific Islander serving institutions in the Higher Education Act. H.R. 333, introduced by 

my colleague Mr. Wu and myself, which was originally introduced by Mr. Underwood in the 107th Congress, would amend the Higher Education Act to create such 

a category. Since this bill has not yet been enacted into law we must offer amendments such as the one that Mr. Wu and I are offering today to include these institutions among 

those served by worthy programs such as this one. Our amendment defines for the 

purposes of this program ‘‘Asian American and Pacific Islander serving institutions’’ that would be eligible to apply for the grants created by this program. I recognize that there are several issues that this category brings up. If we simply define such an institution as having a certain percentage of the student population 

comprised of Asian American and Pacific Islander students, we open the door to 

many institutions that, quite frankly, do not require the assistance that this program is designed to provide. To try to address this problem, we added an income 

qualification to the definition. 

This will not address another concern that Members have expressed to me, that 

our amendment may be interpreted as changing the Higher Education Act, which 

is beyond the Committee’s jurisdiction. To achieve this goal, what we really need to do is to advance our bill H.R. 333 in the Education committee, and I support my 

colleague Mr. Wu’s efforts on this front. 

I believe that the bill offers some flexibility on the part of the Secretary to con- sider institutions not explicitly listed in the bill, and I hope that we can work with 

members of both the majority and minority parties on report language that would 

express the sentiment that there are some institutions that serve Asian Americans 

and Pacific Islanders that this bill should encompass. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there any objection to the unanimous consent request of the gentleman? Hearing none, so ordered. 

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, to your left. Chairman BOEHLERT. Seeks recognition. 

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I would move to strike the last word. Chairman BOEHLERT. The chair recognizes Mr. Smith of Michigan. 

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Just in reacting to Mr. Honda’s amendment, I think it does bring to our attention that there are many 

areas that could use the help in this technological divide. I think 

of women in our effort may be in colleges that have 70 percent 

women. I think of community colleges where great potential exists, 

so our goal in narrowing the digital divide is helping those students 

and those institutions that need the help. 

Now, there is no question in my mind that traditionally, black 

colleges need the help, but also, there is a lot of other schools and 

a lot of other students that need that help, Mr. Chairman, and I 

would just like to say that directing our limited available resources 

31 

to those most in need should be the primary goal of the policy of 

this Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce for the record—in our 

Committee, we held a two hour long hearing with three witnesses 

testifying on this bill. The Director of the National Science Foundation testified that she did not feel it appropriate that this kind of 

legislation with that responsibility be directed toward the National 

Science Foundation. I have a letter sent to the Chairman from Assistant Secretary Brenda Baker that says that they would prefer 

that it not be in Commerce either, and it says, and I quote the second paragraph: ‘‘I am advised that the financial assistance is already available for institutions of higher education, including minority-serving institutions, to acquire educational technologies, provide educational services, including faculty development, use of 

other technologies through several Department of Education programs. In addition, the President’s Fiscal Year ’04 budget supports 

a number of programs administered through the Departments of 

Education and Agriculture to provide financial assistance to improve technology instruction and infrastructure at higher educational facilities including minority-serving institutions, and accordingly, the Secretary says the Administration opposes the creation of a duplicative program called for in 2183 that is inconsistent with the President’s budget.’’ And I would move that this 

letter be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR LEGISLATIVE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, July 22, 2003. 

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your Committee is scheduled to mark up 

H.R. 2183, the ‘‘Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 

Technology Opportunity Act of 2003’’, on July 22, 2003. We understand that your Committee has appropriately determined that this 

program is ill-suited for placement in the National Science Foundation. We understand that the version of the bill that will be considered would create a new grant program within the Department of 

Commerce’s Technology Administration and would authorize appropriations of $250 million for each of the next five fiscal years. 

I am advised that financial assistance is already available for institutions of higher education, including minority-serving institutions, to acquire educational technologies and provide educational 

services, including faculty development in the use of these technologies, through several Department of Education programs. In 

addition, the President’s FY 2004 Budget supports a number of 

programs, administered through the Departments of Education and 

Agriculture, to provide financial assistance to improve technology 

instruction and infrastructure at higher-education facilities, including minority-serving institutions. Accordingly, the Administration 

opposes the creation of a duplicative program that is inconsistent 

with the President’s Budget. 

32 

In addition, I am advised that the Department of Justice has 

raised constitutional concerns about the definition of ‘‘eligible institution’’ in the legislation. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the 

Administration’s program. 

Sincerely, 

BRENDA BECKER. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you 

very much. The Chair now recognizes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman. She has a——

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chair recognizes Ms. Woolsey for the 

purpose of offering an amendment. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to offer Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson’s 

amendment that would add a new section to the bill. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. The amendment to H.R. 2801 offered by Ms. Eddie 

Bernice Johnson of Texas, offered on behalf of Ms. Woolsey. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Just the opposite. 

The CLERK. Oh, on behalf of Ms. Woolsey, an amendment offered 

by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr.——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Woolsey is recognized. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment adds 

a new section to the bill, Section 10, and it just very clearly and 

simply covers the achievements and honors the achievements and 

contributions of African-American scientists, mathematicians and 

inventors, and it is a good fit in this bill, and she is very appreciative that it was added to this——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and I might add it 

is a good fit. We are in agreement. Who else seeks recognition? Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would like to add my support. It is an excellent amendment and it has a good fit to a bill, Mr. Chairman, that 

I would like to thank the Ranking and Chairman of this Subcommittee and then the full Committee leadership for this legislation. I know that it had a very long journey from the area where 

it was previously placed to the Department of Commerce. I believe 

with the leadership of NAFEO that we are moving on steady 

ground. I am delighted that we answered their concerns in negotiation on the question of peer review, meaning that their peers would 

be reviewing their proposals, that there is very good funding, that 

we are addressing a very crucial issue, which many of us would 

like not to admit, and that is the digital divide in institutions of 

higher learning, and so this legislation will help with the infrastructure, the education capabilities of historically black colleges, 

Native American colleges and others, and as well, create a network 

system where students can communicate with each other and the 

colleges can communicate with each other. This is crucial and I believe the amendment of the distinguished lady from Texas will add 

33 

a very strong component to acknowledging those achievements of 

African-American scientists who have gone on before. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank the gentlelady. Is there anyone 

else who seeks recognition? if not, the question occurs on the 

amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes 

have it, and the amendment is adopted. Are there any further 

amendments? There are none. The vote is on the bill as amended. 

H.R. 2801, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 

Technology Opportunity Act of 2003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

Now, I will recognize Mr. Hall for a motion. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably 

report H.R. 2801 as amended to the House with a recommendation 

that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I move that the 

staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report, make necessary 

technical and conforming changes and that the Chairman take all 

necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. The question is on the motion to report the bill favorably. Those in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have 

it. The ayes appear to have it, and the bill is favorably reported. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

I move that members have two subsequent calendar days in which 

to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. I move, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the House that the 

Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may 

be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate on 

the bill H.R. 2801, or a similar Senate bill. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

[Whereupon, the Committee proceeded to other business.] 

AMENDMENT ROSTER

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

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

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

No. Sponsor Description Results 

1. Mr. Boehlert ........................ Amendment would specify that educating teachers in 

science, math, engineering, and technology are 

among the areas for which funding could be provided.

—Adopted by a voice vote. 

2. Mr. Honda ........................... Amendment would add to the list of eligible institutions—Asian American and Pacific Islander serving 

institutions.

—Unanimous consent request to withdraw the 

amendment; agreed to 

by a voice vote. 

3. Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson Amendment adds a new section to the bill: Sec. 10—

Achievements and Contributions of African-American 

Scientists, Mathematicians, and Inventors.

—Adopted by a voice vote. 

34 

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2801 OFFERED BY MR. BOEHLERT

Page 3, line 11, insert ‘‘, including instruction in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology subjects’’ after ‘‘instructional 

process’’. 

35 


Insert graphic folio 65 HR789.001
36 


Insert graphic folio 66 HR789.002
37 


Insert graphic folio 67 HR789.003
38 


Insert graphic folio 68 HR789.004
39 


Insert graphic folio 69 HR789.005
40 


Insert graphic folio 70 HR789.006
41 


Insert graphic folio 71 HR789.007
42 


Insert graphic folio 72 HR789.008
43 


Insert graphic folio 73 HR789.009
44 


Insert graphic folio 74 HR789.010
45 


Insert graphic folio 75 HR789.011
46 


Insert graphic folio 76 HR789.012
47 


Insert graphic folio 77 HR789.013
48 


Insert graphic folio 78 HR789.014
49 


Insert graphic folio 79 HR789.015
50 


Insert graphic folio 80 HR789.016
51 


Insert graphic folio 81 HR789.017
52 


Insert graphic folio 82 HR789.018
53