39–006

109TH CONGRESS REPT. 109–211 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session Part 1

MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND 

WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005

JULY 28, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 921] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

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

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

favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 

do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 2

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 2

III. Hearing Summary ....................................................................................... 3

IV. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 4

V. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 5

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section) .................................. 5

VII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 7

VIII. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 9

IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 10

X. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 11

XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 11

XII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 11

XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 12

XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 12

XV. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 12

XVI. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 12

XVII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 12

XVIII. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 16

XIX. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 17 

2

I. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

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

in acquiring, and augmenting their use of, digital and wireless networking technologies to improve the quality and delivery of educational services at their institutions. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Developing an educated and technologically literate workforce is 

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

economy. Whether technology should be used in schools is no 

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

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

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

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

ensure that all Americans are technically proficient and prepared 

for the 21st Century workforce. 

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

the home, attended poor schools that were neither wired nor 

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

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

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

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

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

Toward Digital Inclusion, which found that African-Americans, 

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

Internet from home than African-Americans or Hispanics from any 

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

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

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

slightly for African-Americans and Hispanics from their December 

1998 rates. 

The digital divide series prompted the National Association for 

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

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

NAFEO’s 118 member institutions, 80 Historically Black Colleges 

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

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

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

3

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

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

bandwidth, for faster connections and more web-based applications, 

was available to half of reporting institutions. 

The larger problem turned out not to be the availability of networking capacity, but rather its use. Only 7.5 percent reported 

using the high-speed lines even though they were available at half 

the institutions. Similarly, of the 29 percent of HBCUs with access 

to wireless technology, only 43 percent were using it. Although it 

was not clear why many HBCUs weren’t using the high-speed connections available to them, some speculated that it had to do with 

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

vast majority of HBCU students relied on institutional resources to 

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

only 50 percent of the respondents reported providing ‘‘on-demand’’ student access to computing resources. 

Although the report did not examine the need for an improved 

technology infrastructure at other minority-serving institutions 

(MSIs), anecdotal evidence suggests that the problems at other 

MSIs mirror those at the HBCUs. 

MSIs play a unique role in the education of our diverse American 

workforce. According to recent reports, 21 percent of all college degrees and certificates awarded to African-American, American Indian and Hispanic students are conferred by MSIs. MSIs also help 

underrepresented students succeed in all disciplines, and science, 

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

HBCUs. Similarly, Hispanic-Serving Institutions produced 20 percent of all science, math, engineering or technology bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanics in 1996. 

MSIs have special expertise in serving their communities, which 

include large numbers of low-income or first-generation college students. Unlike other, larger institutions of higher education, however, MSIs typically have small or nonexistent endowments and 

few wealthy alumni. As a result, the ability to finance the acquisition and maintenance of the technology that will prepare these students for the workforce is especially challenging for many MSIs. 

This Act seeks to address the concerns above and provides funding to assist minority-serving institutions in acquiring, and augmenting their use of, digital and wireless networking technologies 

to improve the quality and delivery of educational services at their 

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

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

III. HEARING SUMMARY

During the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Research of the 

Committee on Science held a hearing to examine the unmet technology infrastructure needs of minority-serving institutions (MSIs). 

Invited witnesses provided comments on and made recommendaVerDate jul 14 2003 04:28 Aug 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR211P1.XXX HR211P1
4

tions for additions to H.R. 2183, the Minority Serving Institution 

Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003. This legislation, introduced by Representative J. Randy Forbes, was the 

predecessor to H.R. 921 in the 109th Congress. 

Specifically, on July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee received testimony from Senator George Allen, sponsor of S. 196, the Senate 

companion to H.R. 2183, and Representative Edolphus Towns, 

sponsor of H.R. 2272, similar bipartisan legislation introduced in 

the House of Representatives. The Subcommittee also heard testimony from representatives of MSIs and associations of such institutions, including the National Association for Equal Opportunity 

in Higher Education, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, and the United Negro College Fund. These witnesses discussed the technology infrastructure needs at MSIs as well as efforts by such institutions to address them. Finally, the Subcommittee heard from then National Science Foundation (NSF) Director, Dr. Rita Colwell. Dr. Colwell described her agency’s efforts 

to expand access to women and minorities in science, mathematics, 

engineering and technology education and research and announced 

a new initiative to provide outreach to MSIs. She also expressed 

opposition to the bill’s placement of the program at NSF. 

IV. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

After the hearing in the 108th Congress, Representatives J. 

Randy Forbes and Edolphus Towns reintroduced the modified text 

of H.R. 2183 as H.R. 2801, the Minority Serving Institution Digital 

and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2003, a bill to build 

the technology infrastructure at MSIs. 

On July 22, 2003, the Full Committee on Science met to consider 

H.R. 2801. A clarifying amendment, which provided that instruction in science, mathematics, engineering and technology subjects 

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

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

Sense of the Congress on the contributions of African American 

mathematicians, scientists and inventors. The amendment was 

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

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

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

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

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

and conforming changes to the bill as amended and prepare the 

legislative report, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps 

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

present, the motion was agreed to by voice vote. 

On November 14, 2004, the Committee on Science reported the 

bill, as amended, and filed the report (108–789). No further action 

was taken prior to the adjournment of the 108th Congress. 

On February 17, 2005, Representatives J. Randy Forbes and 

Edolphus Towns reintroduced the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005 as H.R. 921. 

5

The full Committee on Science met on May 4, 2005 to consider 

H.R. 921. The bill was ordered reported, favorably, without amendment by unanimous consent. 

V. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

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

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

provide training, education and professional development programs 

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

media specialist training and pre-school and teacher aid certification in technology; obtain technical assistance; and foster the use 

of technology to improve research and education. • Establishes an Advisory Council, composed of representatives 

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

institutions in the program. • Establishes review panels, selected by the Under Secretary, 

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

knowledgeable about MSIs and technology issues, to judge the 

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

the institution can effectively use the funds. Requires the Under 

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

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

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

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

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

all types of institutions eligible for assistance. 

• Requires institutions to report annually to the Under Secretary 

on their use of the funds. 

• Requires the Under Secretary to contract with the National 

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

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

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

• Authorizes $250 million for fiscal year 2006 and all subsequent 

years through fiscal year 2010. 

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

Section 1. Short title 

The ‘‘Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005.’’

Section 2. Establishment of program 

Establishes a Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 

Technology Opportunity Program within the Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce to assist eligible instituVerDate jul 14 2003 04:28 Aug 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR211P1.XXX HR211P1
6

tions in acquiring, and augmenting the use of, digital and wireless 

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

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

networking capability, hardware and software, digital network 

technology, wireless technology, and infrastructure; (2) develop and 

provide digital and wireless networking technology training, education and professional development; (3) acquire capacity-building 

technical assistance through remote technical support, workshops, 

and distance learning services; and (4) foster the use of digital and 

wireless networking technology to improve research and education. 

Requires applicants to describe any technology to be acquired 

and how the applicant will ensure that the technology will be made 

available to students, faculty and administrators. Requires the 

Under Secretary, consistent with the recommendations of a review 

panel and in consultation with the advisory panel, to establish 

other application requirements. 

Requires the establishment of an advisory council, which must 

include representatives of minority institutions, minority businesses and technology experts, to help the Under Secretary encourage maximum participation by eligible institutions and to provide 

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

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

extent to which they can effectively and successfully utilize the 

funds. Requires the Under Secretary to take into consideration the 

recommendations of a review panel in awarding grants. Requires 

the Under Secretary to convene an annual meeting of MSIs receiving grants to foster collaboration and capacity building. 

Requires a non-federal match equal to 25 percent of the grant or 

$500,000, whichever is less, for institutions with an endowment of 

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

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

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

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

with the greatest need for assistance and requires that awards are 

made to all types of eligible institutions. 

Requires institutions to report annually to the Under Secretary 

on their use of the funds. Requires the Under Secretary to contract 

with the National Academy of Public Administration to conduct an 

independent assessment once every three years on the effectiveness 

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

staff. Also requires recommendations on the continuing need for 

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

Defines terms. 

Section 3. Authorization of appropriations 

Authorizes $250 million for fiscal year 2006 and each year 

through fiscal year 2010. 

7

VII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

The Committee believes that our continued economic growth and 

competitiveness depends in large part on advances in science and 

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

growing federal investment in programs designed to strengthen 

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

MSIs and other institutions of higher education limits the ability 

of MSIs to graduate technically literate students and contribute 

positively to the fields of science, mathematics, engineering and 

technology. 

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

to improve education. In addition, this Act provides opportunities 

for MSIs to determine the best strategies to build and maintain 

their technology infrastructures through annual meetings with 

other grantees. 

As the bill was initially conceived during the 108th Congress, the 

program was placed at the National Science Foundation (NSF). The 

Committee strongly opposed that placement because the mission of 

the agency does not include the acquisition of technology that is 

unrelated to scientific research. Moreover, the Committee was also 

concerned that the placement of the program at NSF would put 

other education and outreach programs at risk, including those designed to increase the participation of women and minorities in the 

sciences. The Committee believes placement of the program within 

the Technology Administration at the Department of Commerce, as 

reflected in H.R. 921 and its 108th Congress predecessor, H.R. 

2801, as amended, is a better fit. 

While the Committee believes that the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Act of 2005 will help provide 

important seed money to address 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 

8

academic programs, including mathematics, science, engineering 

and technology and teacher preparation, at eligible institutions. 

For the purposes of the application and review procedures, the 

Committee expects the Under Secretary to ensure that members of 

review panels include representatives of MSIs and others who are 

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

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

participation among MSIs and their representatives on the review 

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

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

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

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

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

of experts knowledgeable about both the technology being sought 

and the implementation of this technology at education institutions. For that reason, the Committee expects the membership on 

these panels to include (in addition to representatives of 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 students and faculty current after the Federal contribution expires. Yet, the Committee appreciates the financial circumstances of many MSIs and, for that reason, waives the required 

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

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

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

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

five-year authorization. It is not the Committee’s intention to establish a maximum grant. Rather, the Committee seeks to ensure 

that the full range of MSIs—urban and rural, public and private, 

two-year and four-year—are able to compete effectively for grants 

under this program, with priority given to institutions with a demonstrated need for assistance. 

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

catch up to other institutions of higher education, the Committee 

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

9

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

contract with the National Academy of Public Administration to 

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

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

in improving education and training at MSIs. 

The Committee recognizes that other institutions of higher education with unmet technology needs also serve statistically significant numbers and percentages of minority and low-income students 

and appreciates the fact that the digital divide includes disparities 

in socioeconomic status and educational attainment. For that reason, the Committee was careful to include so called ‘‘majority-minority institutions,’’ or institutions with large low-income minority 

populations that otherwise do not qualify as a HBCU, HSI, or Tribal Serving Institution among those institutions that are eligible for 

assistance under this program. 

In addition, the Committee acknowledges that some Members 

are interested in establishing additional categories of minority populations, such as Asian Americans, for the purposes of this program. While recognizing that some minority groups, like Asian 

Americans, are an important part of our society, the Committee 

was disinclined to include them as a new category under this program because too little data was available on the number of 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.

VIII. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

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

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

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

H.R. 921 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, 

or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the 

sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 921 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained in 

Section X of this report. 

10

IX. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 11, 2005. 

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 921, the Minority Serving 

Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 

2005. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mike Waters. 

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH M. ROBINSON

(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director). 

Enclosure.

H.R. 921—Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005

Summary: H.R. 921 would create a new grant program within 

the Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce for 

educational institutions that serve minority students. Eligible institutions could use the funds to improve instructional capabilities 

and infrastructure related to digital and wireless technologies. The 

bill would authorize the appropriation of $250 million for each of 

fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for this program and would require 

grant recipients to provide matching funds under certain conditions. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology would administer the new Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless 

Technology Opportunity Program with guidance from a special advisory council. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 921 would cost $823 million over the 

2006–2010 period. CBO estimates that enacting this bill would 

have no effect on direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 921 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); 

any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result from 

complying with the conditions of federal assistance. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 921 is shown in the following table. For this 

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

at rates similar to other educational grant programs. The costs of 

this legislation fall within budget function 370 (commerce and 

housing credit).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

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

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

11

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 921 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined by 

UMRA. The bill would benefit eligible institutions of higher education by authorizing $250 million per year, for fiscal years 2006 

through 2010, to strengthen their capacity to provide instruction in 

digital and wireless networking technologies. Public institutions 

could apply for and receive these grants; any costs they incur 

would result from complying with conditions of federal assistance. 

Previous CBO estimate: On April 27, 2005, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for S. 432, an identically titled bill, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on April 14, 2005. The two versions of the legislation are 

similar and would authorize the same amount of appropriations. 

H.R. 921 would place the implementation of the program within 

the Department of Commerce while the Senate bill would establish 

an entirely new office within the National Science Foundation.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Michael Waters. Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum. Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

X. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

H.R. 921 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XI. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

XII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of H.R. 921 

are to assist minority serving institutions in acquiring, and augmenting their use of, digital and wireless networking technologies 

to improve the quality and delivery of educational services at their 

institutions. 

The Committee requires that all of the programs authorized 

under the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Networking Opportunity Act of 2005 be awarded on a competitive 

basis. Informed by the recommendations of a review panel, this 

process is expected to ensure that funds are awarded to build the 

technology infrastructure at the full range of minority serving institutions, with a priority for demonstrated need for assistance. While 

improving the technology infrastructure is a key component of this 

legislation, it is imperative that this technology be used to improve 

the teaching and learning of students, faculty and administrators. 

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

with parallel efforts to use such technology to improve the quality 

and delivery of educational services at the minority serving institutions. 

Given the limited amount of data on the specific technology 

needs of many minority serving institutions—and the significant 

investment authorized by this program—the bill requires all minority serving institutions receiving assistance under this program to 

12

be subjected to a rigorous assessment and evaluation of how the 

money is spent in order to collect and disseminate information on 

best practices. 

XIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 921. 

XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The functions of the advisory committee established by H.R. 921 

are not currently being nor could they be performed by one or more 

agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another existing advisory 

committee. 

XV. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 921 does not relate to the terms 

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

XVI. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

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

XVII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

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

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

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

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

roman): 

SECTION 5 OF THE STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY 

INNOVATION ACT OF 1980

SEC. 5. COMMERCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS

TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Under 

Secretary, shall establish a Minority Serving Institution Digital 

and Wireless Technology Opportunity Program to assist eligible 

institutions in acquiring, and augmenting their use of, digital 

and wireless networking technologies to improve the quality 

and delivery of educational services at eligible institutions. 

(2) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—An eligible institution may use 

a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract awarded under this 

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

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

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

(B) to develop and provide training, education, and professional development programs, including faculty developVerDate jul 14 2003 04:28 Aug 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR211P1.XXX HR211P1
13

ment, to increase the use of, and usefulness of, digital and 

wireless networking technology; 

(C) to provide teacher education, including the provision 

of preservice teacher training and in-service professional 

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

to individuals who seek to acquire or enhance technology 

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

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

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

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

technology to improve research and education, including 

scientific, mathematics, engineering, and technology instruction. 

(3) APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to receive a grant, cooperative agreement, or contract under this subsection, an eligible institution shall submit an application to the Under 

Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing 

such information as the Under Secretary may require. Such 

application, at a minimum, shall include a description of 

how the funds will be used, including a description of any 

digital and wireless networking technology to be acquired, 

and a description of how the institution will ensure that 

digital and wireless networking will be made accessible to, 

and employed by, students, faculty, and administrators. 

The Under Secretary, consistent with subparagraph (C) 

and in consultation with the advisory council established 

under subparagraph (B), shall establish procedures to review such applications. The Under Secretary shall publish 

the application requirements and review criteria in the Federal Register, along with a statement describing the availability of funds. 

(B) ADVISORY COUNCIL.—The Under Secretary shall establish an advisory council to advise the Under Secretary 

on the best approaches to encourage maximum participation by eligible institutions in the program established 

under paragraph (1), and on the procedures to review proposals submitted to the program. In selecting the members 

of the advisory council, the Under Secretary shall consult 

with representatives of appropriate organizations, including 

representatives of eligible institutions, to ensure that the 

membership of the advisory council includes representatives 

of minority businesses and eligible institution communities. 

The Under Secretary shall also consult with experts in digital and wireless networking technology to ensure that such 

expertise is represented on the advisory council. 

(C) REVIEW PANELS.—Each application submitted under 

this subsection by an eligible institution shall be reviewed 

by a panel of individuals selected by the Under Secretary 

to judge the quality and merit of the proposal, including 

14

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. 

15

(v) NEED.—In awarding funds under this subsection, 

the Under Secretary shall give priority to the institution with the greatest demonstrated need for assistance. 

(G) ANNUAL REPORT AND EVALUATION.— (i) ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED FROM RECIPIENTS.— Each institution that receives a grant, cooperative 

agreement, or contract awarded under this subsection 

shall provide an annual report to the Under Secretary 

on its use of the grant, cooperative agreement, or contract. 

(ii) INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 6 

months after the date of enactment of this subsection, 

the Under Secretary shall enter into a contract with the 

National Academy of Public Administration to conduct 

periodic assessments of the program. The Assessments 

shall be conducted once every 3 years during the 10-

year period following the enactment of this subsection. 

The assessments shall include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program in improving the education 

and training of students, faculty and staff at eligible 

institutions that have been awarded grants, cooperative 

agreements, or contracts under the program; an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program in improving 

access to, and familiarity with, digital and wireless 

networking technology for students, faculty, and staff 

at all eligible institutions; an evaluation of the procedures established under paragraph (3)(A); and recommendations for improving the program, including 

recommendations concerning the continuing need for 

Federal support. In carrying out its assessments, the 

National Academy of Public Administration shall review the reports submitted to the Under Secretary 

under clause (i). 

(iii) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Upon completion of 

each independent assessment carried out under clause 

(ii), the Under Secretary shall transmit the assessment 

to Congress along with a summary of the Under Secretary’s plans, if any, to implement the recommendations of the National Academy of Public Administration. 

(H) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

(i) DIGITAL AND WIRELESS NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘digital and wireless networking 

technology’’ means computer and communications 

equipment and software that facilitates the transmission of information in a digital format. 

(ii) ELIGIBLE INSTITUTION.—The term ‘‘eligible institution’’ means an institution that is—

(I) a historically Black college or university that 

is a part B institution, as defined in section 322(2) 

of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1061(2)), an institution described in section 

326(e)(1)(A), (B), or (C) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 

1063b(e)(1)(A), (B), or (C)), or a consortium of institutions described in this subparagraph; 

16

(II) a Hispanic-serving institution, as defined in 

section 502(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5)); 

(III) a tribally controlled college or university, as 

defined in section 316(b)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)(3)); 

(IV) an Alaska Native-serving institution under 

section 317(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 1059d(b)); 

(V) a Native Hawaiian-serving institution under 

section 317(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 1059d(b)); or 

(VI) an institution of higher education (as defined in section 365 of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067k)) with an enrollment of 

needy students (as defined in section 312(d) of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1058(d)). 

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

the term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 

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

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

educational agency’’ has the meaning given the term in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

South American origin), or Pacific Islander individual. 

(vii) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning 

given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801). 

(viii) STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—The term ‘‘State 

educational agency’’ has the meaning given the term in 

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

XVIII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On May 4, 2005, a quorum being present, the Committee on 

Science favorably reported the Minority Serving Institution Digital 

and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005, by unanimous 

consent, and recommended its enactment. 

(17)

XIX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 921, MINORITY 

SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 

2005 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2005 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Good morning. The Committee on Science 

will come to order. 

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to consider 

the following measures: H.R. 921, Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005; H.R. 1674, 

U.S. Tsunami Warning and Education Act; and H.R. 250, Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. I ask unanimous 

consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during consideration of these matters. And without objection, that is 

so ordered. 

We will now proceed with the markup, beginning with opening 

statements, and I will launch it. 

I want to welcome everyone to this important markup. As usual, 

we have before us bills that represent bipartisan efforts to come up 

with practical solutions to real problems. These bills will advance 

education, protect our Nation and others from natural disasters, 

enhance research and environmental protection, and strengthen 

our economy. Not bad for one morning’s work. 

And I would add that while we are marking up these bills, we 

are also working behind the scenes on our portions of the Homeland Security reauthorization bill that was reported out of the 

Homeland Committee last week. 

Let me talk briefly now about each of the bills before us to save 

time later. 

First up is Mr. Forbes’ bill to help minority serving institutions 

get the information technology equipment they need. This bill is 

identical to the version this committee approved last year, and the 

bill must also go through the Education and Workforce Committee. 

To move the bill forward swiftly, both sides of the aisle here have 

agreed to simply move the bill this morning by unanimous consent. 

18

I think the bill will provide needed assistance to educational institutions that are essential to our efforts to develop more scientists 

and engineers from under-represented groups. And I think our 

version of the bill, which places the program in the Department of 

Commerce rather than the National Science Foundation, matches 

the program with the appropriate agency for carrying it out. 

Our second bill will be the one I have introduced with Representative Inslee to ensure that the Nation and the world are better prepared to detect and respond to tsunamis. We all watched with horror last December as the Indian Ocean tsunami wreaked its devastation. Much of the death that occurred could have been avoided. 

We have an obligation to learn more about tsunamis through research, to improve our ability to detect tsunamis and issue warnings about them, and to improve tsunami preparation and education so that we can limit damage and know what to do when the 

warnings come. This bill will improve research, detection, and education, and significantly, sets aside a proportion of appropriated 

funds for each of these essential activities. 

The basis of this bill was the Administration’s plan. The Administration is to be congratulated for its swift, thoughtful, and comprehensive response to last December’s events. We then built on 

the Administration’s proposal, following the guidance we received 

during our January hearing. As a result, the bill stresses and ensures funding for tsunami preparation and education. And we also 

press for tsunami detection to be integrated as much as possible 

with other Earth- and ocean-observing systems. 

Finally, we will take up Dr. Ehlers’ manufacturing bill, which 

the House passed last year. I know that, as was the case last year, 

we will have some debate over adding to the bill ideas that may 

be worthy in themselves, the proposals, but that would guarantee 

the demise of the bill. That is something we don’t want to do. I will 

oppose most of these amendments, which include authorizing—I 

don’t say all of them, because I haven’t seen all of them. I will oppose most of the amendments, which include authorizing the Advanced Technology Program, a program that I have always supported and continue to support. But I want to make—actually, I 

want to make progress on the bill in connection with manufacturing. That is especially important as we enter the budget season 

with appropriations likely to be more constrained than ever. 

And let me say at the outset that I don’t want the amendment 

debate to obscure the broad, bipartisan support for the base bill, 

which the House passed last year by voice vote, no mean achievement given the political debate surrounding manufacturing last 

year. 

We were going to also do a markup—during the markup this 

morning of the NOAA authorization bill, but both we and the 

Democrats have brought up significant additional changes to the 

bill. We need some more time to talk those through. We will reschedule the markup of the NOAA bill swiftly, and I would hope 

we could do it as early as next week. 

So let me close by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle for their contributions to these bills. As usual, we have beaten 

the odds and have worked out sensible, targeted, bipartisan measures. 

19

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

I want to welcome everyone to this important markup. As usual, we have before 

us bills that represent bipartisan efforts to come up with practical solutions to real 

problems. These bills will advance education, protect our nation and others from 

natural disasters, enhance research and environmental protection and strengthen 

our economy. Not bad for one morning’s work. 

And I would add that while we are marking up these bills, we are also working 

behind the scenes on our portions of the Homeland Security reauthorization bill that 

was reported out of the Homeland Committee last week. 

Let me talk briefly now about each of the bills before us today to save time later. 

First up is Mr. Forbes’ bill to help minority serving institutions get the information technology equipment they need. This bill is identical to the version this committee approved last year, and the bill must also go through the Education and 

Workforce Committee. To move the bill forward swiftly, both sides of the aisle here 

have agreed to simply move the bill this morning by unanimous consent. 

I think the bill will provide needed assistance to educational institutions that are 

essential to our efforts to develop more scientists and engineers from under-represented groups. And I think our version of the bill, which places this program in 

the Department of Commerce rather than in the National Science Foundation, 

matches the program with the appropriate agency for carrying it out. 

Our second bill will be the bill I’ve introduced with Representative Inslee to ensure that the Nation and the world are better prepared to detect and respond to 

tsunamis. We all watched with horror last December as the Indian Ocean tsunami 

wreaked its devastation. Much of the death could have been avoided. 

We have an obligation to learn more about tsunamis through research, to improve 

our ability to detect tsunamis and issue warnings about them, and to improve tsunami preparation and education so that we can limit damage and know what to do 

when the warnings come. This bill will improve research, detection and education 

and, significantly, sets aside a proportion of appropriated funds for each of those essential activities. 

The basis of this bill was the Administration’s plan. The Administration is to be 

congratulated for its swift, thoughtful and comprehensive response to last December’s events. We then built on the Administration proposal, following the guidance 

we received in our January hearing. As a result, the bill stresses and ensures funding for tsunami preparation and education, and we also press for tsunami detection 

to be integrated, as much as possible, with other Earth- and ocean-observing systems. 

Finally, we will take up Dr. Ehlers’ manufacturing bill, which the House passed 

last year. I know that, as was the case last year, we will have some debate over 

adding to the bill ideas that may be worthy in themselves, but that would guarantee 

the demise of this bill. I will oppose those amendments, which include authorizing 

the Advanced Technology Program, a program I have always supported and continue to support. But I want to actually make progress on manufacturing. That’s 

especially important as we enter the budget season with appropriations likely to be 

more constrained than ever. 

And let me say at the outset that I don’t want the amendment debate to obscure 

the broad, bipartisan support for the base bill, which the House passed last year 

by voice vote—no mean achievement given the political debate surrounding manufacturing last year. 

We were going to also mark up the NOAA organic act this morning, but both we 

and the Democrats have brought up significant additional changes to the bill. We 

need some more time to talk those through. We will reschedule the markup of the 

NOAA bill swiftly—perhaps as early as next week. 

So let me close by thanking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their contributions to these bills. As usual, we’ve beaten the odds and have worked out sensible, targeted, bipartisan measures.

Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first thank you for moving NOAA to a later date so that 

we can have a chance—I am sure that this is something that we 

can work out. And there is, I think, general agreement on both the 

minority and the majority on this bill. 

20

We are also pleased that the Committee is moving forward on its 

legislative agenda, and we look forward to continuing to work on 

a bipartisan basis on several major bills that we hope will be before 

the Committee shortly. 

Today, we are addressing three important legislative areas. We 

applaud the choice of topics and only question why the Committee 

has not chosen to legislate more aggressively in certain of these 

areas, especially manufacturing. We support H.R. 921, the Minority 

Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technological Opportunity 

Act. The bill would provide grants to minority serving institutions 

for information technology upgrades and for training faculty and 

staff to use the technology effectively in support of their education 

and research activities. Minority serving institutions prepare a 

growing portion of the future science and technology workforce of 

the Nation, and it is important that these colleges and universities 

be able to provide a quality education for their students. 

H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, is 

a start, but we need to make the bill’s content live up to its title. 

Democratic Members of the Committee, once again, will be offering 

amendments to the MEP funding, workforce training, and technology innovation that would make the bill much stronger. Even if 

these pass, we will only have taken the first steps on one of the 

biggest problems of our day, and we hope we will have other opportunities this Congress to deal with the other aspects of this farreaching problem. 

We are especially pleased that the Committee, in a bipartisan 

fashion, has so rapidly developed H.R. 1674, the United States Tsunami Warning and Education Act. The bill directs NOAA to expand 

the current tsunami warning system on two basins so that all U.S. 

coastal areas and territories will be covered by a buoy-based detection and warning system. The bill also directs NOAA to conduct a 

community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to ensure 

coastal communities are prepared to act upon any warning issued 

by the tsunami warning centers and establish a tsunami research 

program. We enthusiastically support the bill. We feel that the 

funding levels for hazard mitigation and education programs are 

too low. Mr. Wu’s amendment would correct this problem. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

We are pleased that the Committee is moving forward on its legislative agenda 

and we look forward to continuing to work on a bipartisan basis on several major 

bills that we hope will be before the Committee shortly. 

Today we are addressing four important legislative areas. We applaud the choice 

of topics and only question why the Committee has not chosen to legislate more aggressively in certain of these areas, especially manufacturing. 

We support H.R. 921, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act. The bill would provide grants to minority serving institutions for information technology upgrades and for training faculty and staff to use 

the technology effectively in support of their education and research activities. Minority serving institutions prepare a growing portion of the future science and technology workforce of the Nation, and it is important that these colleges and universities be able to provide a quality education for their students. 

H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, is a start but we 

need to make the bill’s contents live up to its title. Democratic Members of the Committee, once again, will be offering amendments on MEP funding, workforce trainVerDate jul 14 2003 04:28 Aug 06, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR211P1.XXX HR211P1
21

ing, and technology innovation that would make the bill much stronger. Even if 

these pass, we will only have taken first steps on one of the biggest problems of 

our day and we hope we will have other opportunities this Congress to deal with 

other aspects of this far-reaching problem. 

We are especially pleased that the Committee in a bipartisan fashion has so rapidly developed H.R. 1674, the United States Tsunami Warning and Education Act. 

The bill directs NOAA to expand the current tsunami warning system to basins so 

that all U.S. coastal areas and territories will be covered by a buoy-based detection 

and warning system. The bill also directs NOAA to conduct a community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to ensure coastal communities are prepared to act 

upon any warnings issued by the tsunami warning centers and establishes a tsunami research program. We enthusiastically support the bill but feel that the funding levels for hazard mitigation and the education program are too low. Mr. Wu’s 

amendment would correct this problem.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. 

Without objection, Members may place opening statements in the 

record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE J. RANDY FORBES

H.R. 921, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005, is intended to strengthen and upgrade the technological infrastructure at Minority Serving Institutions, enabling these institutions to offer students the same access as their peers at other institutions of higher learning. 

The Minority Serving Digital Institution and Wireless Technology Opportunity 

Act of 2005 would establish a new grant program that would provide up to $250 

million to help Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges bridge the digital divide. The grant program would be 

used to:

• Purchase digital and wireless network technologies and infrastructure equipment for campus wiring, equipment upgrades and hardware/software;

• Develop and provide technology education services, including faculty and 

teacher education;

• Provide technical assistance through workshops, distance learning and other 

technology applications;

• And foster the use of information communications technology to increase engineering, math and science research.

Sixty percent of all jobs require information technology skills and jobs in information technology pay significantly higher salaries than jobs in non-information technology fields. Today, Minority Serving Institutions lack the basic information and 

digital technology infrastructure needed to provide their students the necessary 

skills and access to compete and qualify for America’s best paying jobs. 

According to a recent report from the Department of Commerce:

• No Historically Black College or Universities (HBCUs) require computer ownership for their undergraduate students;

• 13 of the 80 HBCUs that participated in the study reported that no students 

owned computers (there are a total of 103 HBCUs);

• Over 70 percent of the students at HBUCs rely on the universities to provide 

computers, however only 50 percent provide students access to computers in 

computer laboratories, libraries, classrooms or other locations;

• Only three percent of HBCUs have financial aid available to help students 

close the computer ownership gap;

• One-third of the U.S. population uses the Internet at home, while only 16.1 

percent of Hispanics and 18.9 percent of African Americans have Internet access at home.

This legislation is about much more than just equality in education; it is about 

economic advancement and ensuring that America retains its edge in the math, 

science and technology fields—a critically important requirement in today’s increasingly competitive economic environment.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

22

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for bringing this important legislation 

up today for a mark up. I am a proud co-sponsor of this legislation. 

Just as we passed this legislation last session, I am still very much in support 

of its intent. Minority serving institutions will prepare a growing portion of the future science and technology workforce, simply because demographics dictate that 

minority students will comprise a greater and greater share of the Nation’s collegeaged population. 

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

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

Unfortunately, the capability does not exist at most minority serving institutions. 

A recent report from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration documents the deficiencies in the information infrastructure of these colleges 

and universities. Although most institutions have some Internet access, it is generally not the high-speed access necessary to support distance education and research applications. More troubling, half of these institutions have no plan in place 

for upgrading their information technology infrastructure. Since minority serving institutions have significantly smaller budgets than other higher education institutions, and therefore less money for information technology support and upgrades, 

they will inevitably fall further behind as the technology continues its rapid advance. 

The legislation up for markup today seeks to address this problem by providing 

grants to minority serving institutions for information technology upgrades and for 

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing this bill to come up for markup 

and for your intent to move the legislation expeditiously. I urge my colleagues to 

support its passage.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

The bill before us today takes a critical step toward ensuring that all of our nation’s young people have access to the education that will make them the leaders 

if tomorrow. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Forbes for reintroducing this needed 

piece of legislation. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this legislation just as I was 

in the 108th Congress. During that last Congress, I worked with Dr. Fred Humphries of NAFEO and Ms. Stephanie Myers to improve upon this legislation. 

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

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

and puts forth the resources necessary to start to bridge it. The digital divide separates the Nation’s minority serving institutions from other universities, but more 

importantly, it separates them from the vast stores of information, of data archived 

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

well. I am pleased to see the Science Committee showing strong commitment to this 

worthy bill. 

Without excellent state-of-the-art computing and networking infrastructure, our 

HBCUs, tribal colleges, Hispanic universities, and those serving other minority 

groups, will never be able to place their students on the cutting edge, ready to take 

leadership positions in their respective fields. They will never be able to compete 

with richer universities for grant money for the big research programs. Of course, 

without that grant money, and without rich and powerful alumni, they will never 

be able to afford to purchase the infrastructure they need. We must break this cycle 

that is locking up the potential of these great institutions and their students. 

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

I am pleased that several provisions that I discussed with Dr. Humphries in hearings held during the last Congress here in the Science Committee were finally incorporated into this bill. Specifically, I am referring to the peer review provisions that 

will ensure that those people making decisions of what institutions receive grants, 

23

will have an appreciation and understanding of the challenges and capabilities of 

our nation’s minority serving institutes. 

I hope that our colleagues here in the House display the same level of commitment to excellence in education and research as those here in the Science Committee, and will support the bill that comes out of this committee. If so, I am confident that this bill will enable our minority students and researchers to drive forward the march of science and technology, and not be left behind by it. 

Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 921, Minority 

Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity 

Act of 2005.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee favorably report 

H.R. 921—oh, we are doing this one on the—got it. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee favorably report H.R. 921 to the 

House with the recommendation that the bill do pass and that staff 

be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary 

technical and conforming changes and that the Chairman take all 

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

I also ask unanimous consent that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or 

additional views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of 

Rule 22 of the Rules of the House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be 

necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 921. Without objection, so ordered. 

I want to thank the Members for their attendance and for their 

continued active participation in the deliberations of this committee. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(24)

Appendix: 

H.R. 921, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

25


921a.eps
26


921b.eps
27


921c.eps
28


921d.eps
29


921e.eps
30


921f.eps
31


921g.eps
32


921h.eps
33


921i.eps
34


921j.eps
35


921k.eps
36


921l.eps
37


921m.eps
38


921n.eps
39

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 921, MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION

DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005

Section 1. Short Title 

‘‘Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 

2005.’’

Section 2. Establishment of the Program 

Establishes the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Program within the Technology Administration of the Department of 

Commerce to assist minority-serving institutions (MSIs) in acquiring and augmenting their use of networking and information technology. Funds may be used 

to acquire equipment; develop and provide training, education and professional development programs related to the use of technology; provide teacher education, including pre-service and in-service professional development, library and media specialist training and pre-school and teacher aid certification in technology; obtain 

technical assistance; and foster the use of technology to improve research and education. 

Establishes an Advisory Council, comprised of representatives of MSIs, minority 

businesses and others with expertise in technology, to help encourage maximum 

participation in the program. 

Establishes a review panel, selected by the Under Secretary and includes representatives of MSIs and others who are knowledgeable about MSIs and technology 

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

the institution can effectively use the funds. The Under Secretary is required to consider the recommendations of the review panel in determining whether to award or 

deny funds. 

Requires institutions to report annually to the Under Secretary on their use of 

the funds. 

Requires the National Academy of Public Administration to conduct an independent assessment once every three years on the effectiveness of the program in 

improving the education and training as well as access to and familiarity with technology for students, faculty and staff. Also requires recommendations on the continuing need for federal support. Upon completion, requires the results of the independent assessment to be transmitted to the Congress. 

Defines terms. 

Section 3. Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorizes $250 million for fiscal year 2006 and each of the following fiscal years 

through fiscal year 2010.

Æ