U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

39–010

" SENATE ! 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2005

109–94

Calendar No. 143

THE MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005

REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION

ON

S. 432

JUNE 27, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 


congress.#13
(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Deputy Staff Director 

DAVID RUSSELL, Chief Counsel 

MARGARET CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

Calendar No. 143

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 1st Session 109–94

THE MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND 

WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2005

JUNE 27, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. STEVENS, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 432]

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 432) to establish a digital and wireless network technology program, and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment 

and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to establish a $250 million per year 

grant program within the National Science Foundation (NSF) from 

fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to strengthen the ability of minority-serving institutions (MSIs), which include Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

(HSIs), tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), Alaska Native-serving institutions, and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions to provide instruction in digital and wireless network technologies, and 

enhance the nation’s digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing the national investment in telecommunications and technology 

infrastructure at these institutions. 

The bill is designed to close the ‘‘economic opportunity divide’’ 

that exists between the graduates of MSIs and graduates of other 

institutions of higher learning, and thus, improve the quality of 

education for students at MSIs. These institutions will continue to 

play an important role in providing the nation with a well educated 

and talented workforce. 

The bill would allow eligible institutions the opportunity through 

grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, to acquire equipment, 

2

instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software, 

digital network technology, and wireless technology/infrastructure 

to develop and provide educational services. The grants also would 

be used for such activities as campus wiring, equipment upgrades, 

technology training, and hardware/software acquisition. MSIs could 

use the funds to offer its students universal access to campus networks, dramatically increase their connectivity rates, or make necessary infrastructure improvements. 

Through a peer-reviewed process, and in consultation with the 

Director of the National Science Foundation, eligible institutions 

could receive up to $2.5 million per year with a 25 percent costsharing (not to exceed $500,000). This matching requirement, 

though, would be waived for any MSI with an endowment of less 

than $50 million. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Historically black colleges and universities 

In October 2000 the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report, Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of Networking and 

Connectivity. The report was the product of a study to gain an overall perspective of the networking capabilities and connectivity of 

HBCUs, and to obtain data that would evaluate the capacity of 

HBCUs to function as part of the national global network. The 

study was sent to 118 colleges and universities. Eighty colleges (68 

percent) responded. 

The report found that 88 percent of the respondents had access 

to T–1 lines, which provide a bandwidth of a specific speed rate 

and capacity suitable for basic functions, from their local Internet 

service providers and operating companies. Forty-three percent of 

the respondents had Asynchronous Transfer Mode technology that 

allows for greater bandwidth and broader Internet technology access. Of the 43 percent that had such access, only 45 percent indicated they used the technology. Twenty-nine percent of HBCUs reported having access to wireless and 43 percent of those with access were using it. 

These technology restrictions limit HBCUs’ abilities to utilize existing technology applications fully and connect with other institutions of higher education. For example, many schools do not have 

video streaming capability. Only 17 percent of the respondents reported minimal use of collaborative groupware, online registration, 

e-commerce, and other applications. Fewer than 15 percent of the 

respondents offered distance-learning programs. HBCU 

connectivity with libraries, State college systems, the Federal government, and other resources remains limited. 

In addition, the study found limited student computer ownership. 

No HBCU reported requiring computer ownership, and only 15 percent recommended that students bring their own computers to 

campus. Of the respondents, 60 of the schools estimated that 25 

percent of their students owned computers, and 13 schools reported 

that no students owned computers. Over 75 percent of HBCUs indicated that their students rely on the universities to provide computers. However, only 50 percent of the respondents reported that 

they provide students access to computers in computer laboratories, 

3

libraries, classrooms, and other locations, while 45 percent indicated that they had dormitory common areas with access to the 

campus backbone. 

The NTIA report suggested that the following goals must be addressed: (1) improvement of high-speed connectivity rates; (2) a 

dramatic increase in student computer ownership; (3) improvement 

of HBCUs’ strategic planning process; and (4) willingness to incorporate innovative technologies into campus networks. 

Tribal colleges 

Tribal colleges also have demonstrated a need for improved technology infrastructure. For example, only one tribal college currently 

has funding for high bandwidth connectivity. All tribal colleges 

have some degree of T–1 access, but most only have fractional T–

1 access. In addition, the NTIA report found that tribal colleges 

struggle to hire and maintain computer technicians, offering salaries at half of the industry averages. 

Hispanic-serving institutions 

HSIs are two- and four-year colleges and universities whose Hispanic-American student enrollment is 25 percent or greater of total 

enrollment. Hispanics represent approximately 14.5 percent (3.6 

million) of the total traditional college-age population. By 2006, 

Hispanic undergraduates are expected to outnumber African-American undergraduates for the first time. Over one million Hispanics 

will be academically prepared to attend college by 2015. In 1996, 

Hispanics composed 4 percent of graduate students and had particularly low representation in advanced degrees in engineering, 

mathematics, and computer and physical sciences. HSIs suffer 

technology problems similar to those of HBCUs, according to the 

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities which represents 

HSIs. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 432 was introduced on February 17, 2005, by Senator Allen. 

Senators McCain, Hutchison, Lott, Talent, Warner, Grassley, 

Graham, Thune, Santorum, Burns, Pryor, Lautenberg, and Lincoln 

are co-sponsors of the legislation. 

On April 14, 2005, the Committee met in open executive session 

and, by a voice vote, ordered S. 432 reported without amendment. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, April 27, 2005. 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 432, the Minority Serving 

4 

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, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 432—Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2005 

Summary: S. 432 would create a new grant program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) for educational institutions that 

serve minority students. Eligible institutions could use the funds to 

improve instructional capability and infrastructure related to digital and wireless technologies. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $250 million a year over the 2006–2010 period for this 

program and would require grant recipients to provide matching 

funds under certain conditions. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 432 would cost $823 million over the 

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

have no effect on direct spending or revenues. 

S. 432 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and 

would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 432 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 outlays will occur 

at rates similar to other NSF programs. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 250 (general science, space, and 

technology). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

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

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

Intergovernmental and private sector impact: S. 432 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 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 

network technologies. To the extent that public institutions apply 

for and receive these grants, any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result from complying with the conditions of such 

grants. 

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

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

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

5

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported:

Number of persons covered 

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

regulation. 

Economic impact 

This legislation would not have an adverse impact on the nation. 

It authorizes funding for digital and wireless network technologies 

related awards to MSIs. 

Privacy 

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

Paperwork 

This legislation would require each award recipient to provide to 

NSF any relevant institutional statistical or demographic data as 

requested by NSF. Each award recipient would be required to submit an annual report to the Director of NSF detailing its use of 

funding. The Director would be required to submit to Congress a 

bi-annual report based upon an evaluation of the program including a recommendation on the need for continued Federal support 

of the program. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section would set forth the short title, the ‘‘Minority Serving 

Institution Digital and Wireless Opportunity Act of 2005.’’

Section 2. Establishment of office 

This section would establish an office at the NSF that would be 

called the ‘‘Office of Digital and Wireless Network Technology’’ (Office) to carry out this Act. The Office would have two purposes: (1) 

to strengthen the ability of MSIs to provide capacity for instruction 

in digital and wireless network technologies; and (2) to strengthen 

the national digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing national investment in telecommunications and technology infrastructure at MSIs. 

Section 3. Activities supported 

This section would set forth the specific activities that may be 

supported via a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under the 

digital network technologies program, including—

(1) acquiring equipment, instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software, digital network technology, 

wireless technology, and infrastructure; 

(2) developing and providing educational services, including 

faculty development, to prepare students or faculty seeking a 

degree or certificate; 

6

(3) providing teacher education, library and media specialist 

training, and preschool and teacher aid certification to individuals seeking to acquire or enhance technology skills in order to 

use technology in the classroom or instructional process; 

(4) implementing joint projects to provide education regarding technology in the classroom with a State or State education 

agency, local education agency, community-based organization, 

national non-profit organization, or business; 

(5) providing leadership development to those with institutional responsibility for technology education; 

(6) providing capacity-building technical assistance to eligible 

institutions through technical assistance workshops, distance 

learning, new technologies, and other technological applications; 

(7) fostering the use of information communications technology to increase scientific, mathematical, engineering, and 

technology instruction and research; and 

(8) developing proposals to be submitted under this Act and 

to develop strategic plans for information technology investments. 

Section 4. Application and review procedure 

Subsection (a) would require that to be eligible to receive a grant, 

contract, or cooperative agreement under this Act, an MSI would 

submit an application to the Director at such time, in such manner, 

and accompanied by such information as the Director may reasonably require. The Director, in consultation with the advisory council established under subsection (b), would establish a procedure by 

which to accept such applications and publish an announcement of 

such procedure, including a statement regarding the availability of 

funds, in the Federal Register. 

Subsection (b) would require the Director to establish an advisory council to advise the Director on the best approaches for involving MSIs in the program activities described in section 3. In selecting the members of the advisory council, the Director would be 

authorized to consult with representatives of appropriate organizations, including representatives of eligible institutions, to ensure 

that the membership of the advisory council reflects participation 

by technology and telecommunications institutions, minority businesses, communities of eligible institutions, Federal agency personnel, and other individuals who are knowledgeable about MSIs 

and technology issues. 

Subsection (c) would require that MSI award recipients provide 

the Office with any relevant institutional statistical or demographic 

data requested by the Office. 

Subsection (d) would require the Director to convene an annual 

meeting of MSI award recipients for the purposes of fostering collaboration and capacity-building activities among MSIs, and disseminating information and ideas generated by such meetings. 

Section 5. Matching requirement 

This section would require an applicant MSI to commit to nonFederal cost sharing (directly or through donations from public or 

private entities) in the amount of the lesser of 25 percent or 

7

$500,000. This cost sharing would be waived for any institution or 

consortium with an endowment of less than $50 million. 

Section 6. Limitations 

This section would make an institution that receives a grant that 

exceeds $2,500,000 ineligible to receive another grant until all 

other eligible institutions that have applied to the program receive 

a grant under the Act. It also requires each grant to be administered by an eligible institution. 

Section 7. Annual report and evaluation 

Subsection (a) would require MSI award recipients to provide an 

annual report to the Director on its use of the grant, contract, or 

cooperative agreement. 

Subsection (b) would require the Director, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Education, to (1) review the annual reports as required by subsection (a); and (2) evaluate the program on the basis 

of such reports every two years. 

Subsection (c) would require that, in the program evaluation, the 

Director describe the activities undertaken by those institutions 

and assess the short-range and long-range impact of activities carried out under the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement on the 

students, faculty, and staff of the institutions. 

Subsection (d) would require the Director to submit a report to 

the Congress based on the program evaluation, which shall include 

such recommendations as may be appropriate, including recommendations concerning the continuing need for Federal support 

of the program. 

Section 8. Definitions 

This section would define eligible institutions, using the meaning 

of the terms as defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

‘‘HBCU and consortia thereof; HSI; tribally controlled colleges or 

universities; Alaska native-serving institutions; and native Hawaiian-serving institutions.’’ In addition, any institution determined by 

the NSF Director, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, 

to have enrolled a substantial number of minority, low-income students during the previous academic year who received assistance 

under subpart I of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 for that year, would be eligible. The Director is NSF’s Director, and minority business includes HUBZone small business 

concerns as defined in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act. 

Section 9. Authorization of appropriations 

This section would authorize appropriations of $250 million for 

each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010 to carry out this Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as reported 

would make no change to existing law.

Æ