U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2008

110–257 

Calendar No. 557 

MAX CLELAND MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 1650 

JANUARY 8, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MARGARET CUMMISKY, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HELMS, Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

JEAN TOAL EISEN, Senior Advisor and Deputy Policy Director 

CHRISTINE KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL J. NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

MIMI BRANIFF, Republican Deputy Chief Counsel 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
Calendar No. 557 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–257 

MAX CLELAND MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTION DIGITAL 

AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITY ACT 

JANUARY 8, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

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

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

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1650] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 1650) to establish a digital and wireless network technology program, and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with amendments, 

and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

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

grant program within the Department of Commerce (DOC) from 

fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to strengthen the ability of minority-serving institutions (MSIs), which include Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions 

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

enhance the Nation’s digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing national investment in telecommunications and technology infrastructure at these institutions. The bill is designed to close the 

‘‘economic opportunity divide’’ that exists between the graduates of 

MSIs and graduates of other institutions of higher learning, and 

thus, improve the quality of education for students at MSIs. These 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

institutions will continue to play an important role in providing the 

Nation with a well educated and talented workforce. 

The bill would allow eligible institutions the opportunity through 

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

instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software, 

digital network technology, and wireless technology and infrastructure. These institutions also would be able to develop and provide 

educational services, including faculty development, related to 

science, mathematics, engineering, or technology. MSIs could use 

the funds to offer students universal access to campus networks, 

dramatically increase their connectivity rates, or make necessary 

infrastructure improvements. 

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

Secretary of the DOC, eligible institutions could receive up to $2.5 

million per year with a 25 percent cost-sharing (not to exceed 

$500,000). This matching requirement would be waived for any 

MSI with an endowment of less than $50 million. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

In October 2000, the DOC’s National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) released a report, Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities: An Assessment of Networking and 

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

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

HBCUs to function as part of the national global network. An assessment instrument was sent to all 118 HBCUs; eighty colleges 

(68 percent) responded. 

The report found that 88 percent of the respondents had access 

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

and capacity suitable for basic functions, from their local Internet 

service providers and operating companies. Fifty percent of reporting institutions had access to T–3 lines, which offer greater capacity, though only three institutions were using T–3 connections. 

Forty-three percent of respondents had Asynchronous Transfer 

Mode technology that allows for greater bandwidth and broader 

Internet technology access. Of the 43 percent that had such access, 

only 45 percent indicated they used the technology. Twenty-nine 

percent of HBCUs reported having access to wireless Internet service and 43 percent of those with access were using it. 

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

video streaming capability, and there is only minimal use of group 

software indicating limited use of intranets, or other Internet-based 

collaboration. Fewer than 15 percent of the respondents offered distance-learning programs. HBCU connectivity with libraries, State 

college systems, the Federal government, and other resources remains limited. 

In addition, the study found limited student computer ownership. 

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

campus. Seventy-six percent of the responding schools estimated 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

that less than one of every four of their students owned a computer; therefore, over 75 percent of students attending HBCUs 

must rely on the universities to provide computers to access the 

Internet, World Wide Web, or other network. In the face of this 

need, only 50 percent of the responding HBCUs provide students 

access to these networks at multiple campus locations, and only 45 

percent provide access to the campus backbone in dormitory common areas. 

The NTIA report suggested the following goals: (1) improvement 

of high-speed connectivity rates; (2) a dramatic increase in student 

computer ownership; (3) improvement of HBCUs’ strategic planning process; and (4) willingness to incorporate innovative technologies into campus networks. 

Tribal colleges 

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

has funding for high bandwidth connectivity. All tribal colleges 

have some degree of T–1 access, but most only have fractional T– 1 access. In addition, the NTIA report found that tribal colleges 

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

Hispanic-serving institutions 

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

enrollment. Hispanics represent approximately 14.5 percent (3.6 

million) of the total traditional college-age population. In 2004, Hispanics composed 5 percent of graduate students and had particularly low representation in advanced degrees in engineering, mathematics, and computer and physical sciences. HSIs suffer technology problems similar to those of HBCUs, according to the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities which represents 

HSIs. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1650 was introduced on June 19, 2007, by Senator Kerry. Senators Stevens, Warner, Pryor, Smith, Boxer, Lott, and Webb are cosponsors of the legislation. On June 27, 2007, the Committee met 

in an open executive session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 1650 reported with an amendment. 

Previously, the bill was introduced in the 109th Congress as S. 

432, which was sponsored by Senator Allen, and passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent. In the 108th Congress, the Committee reported S. 196, which was passed by the 

Senate by a vote of 97 to 0. S. 196 was also sponsored by Senator 

Allen. The Committee initially considered and reported this legislation in the 107th Congress, when Senator Cleland sponsored S. 

414, the NTIA Digital Network Technology Program Act. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

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

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, July 11, 2007. 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1650, the Max Cleland Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1650—Max Cleland Minority Serving Institution Digital and 

Wireless Technology Opportunity Act 

Summary: S. 1650 would create a new grant program at the Department of Commerce (DOC) for educational institutions that 

serve minority students. Eligible institutions would use the funds 

to acquire digital and wireless technologies and to increase instructional capacity in the areas of science, mathematics, and technology. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $250 million 

per year over the 2008–2012 period for this program and would require grant recipients to provide matching funds under certain conditions. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO esti- mates that implementing S. 1650 would cost $823 million over the 

2008–2012 period. CBO estimates that enacting this bill would 

have no effect on direct spending or revenues. 

S. 1650 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); 

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

complying with conditions of federal assistance. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1650 is shown in the following table. For this 

estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted near the end 

of 2007, that the authorized amounts will be appropriated near the 

start of the fiscal year, and that outlays will occur at rates similar 

to other DOC grant programs. The costs of this legislation fall 

within budget function 370 (commerce and housing credit). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

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

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

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1650 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

The bill would benefit public institutions of higher education by authorizing $250 million per year, for fiscal years 2008 through 2012, 

to strengthen their capacity to provide instruction in digital netVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:53 Jan 09, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR257.XXX SR257

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

work technologies. Any costs they might incur would result from 

complying with conditions of federal assistance. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susan Willie; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact on 

the Private Sector: Justin Hall. 

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

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

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

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

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

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

regulation. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

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

It authorizes funding for digital and wireless network technologies 

related awards to MSIs. 

PRIVACY

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

PAPERWORK

This legislation would require each award recipient to provide to 

the DOC any relevant institutional statistical or demographic data 

as requested by the DOC. Each award recipient would be required 

to submit an annual report to the Secretary of the Department of 

Commerce detailing its use of funding. The Secretary would be required to submit to Congress a bi-annual report based upon an 

evaluation of the program including a recommendation on the need 

for continued Federal support of the program. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section sets forth the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Max 

Cleland Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act.’’

Section 2. Establishment of office 

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

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

to strengthen the ability of eligible institutions to provide capacity 

for instruction in digital and wireless network technologies; and (2) 

to strengthen the national digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing national investment in telecommunications and technology 

infrastructure at eligible institutions. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

Section 3. Activities supported 

This section would set forth that a grant, contract, or cooperative 

agreement under this Act may be used to— (1) acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software, digital network technology, 

wireless technology, and infrastructure; 

(2) develop and providing educational services, including faculty development, related to science, mathematics, engineering, 

or technology; 

(3) provide teacher education, library and media specialist 

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

to use technology in the classroom or instructional process; 

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

State education agency, local education agency, communitybased organization, national non-profit organization, or business, including minority businesses; 

(5) provide professional development in science, mathematics, engineering, or technology to administrators and faculty of eligible institutions with institutional responsibility for 

technology education; 

(6) provide capacity-building technical assistance to eligible 

institutions through remote technical support, technical assistance workshops, distance learning, new technologies, and other 

technological applications; 

(7) foster the use of information communications technology 

to increase scientific, mathematical, engineering, and technology instruction and research; and 

(8) develop proposals and develop strategic plans for information technology investments. 

Section 4. Application and review procedure 

This section would establish an application and review process. 

Subsection (a) would require an eligible institution to submit an 

application to the DOC Secretary in order to receive a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement. The Secretary, in consultation with 

the advisory council established under subsection (b), would establish application acceptance procedures and publish grant notifications and statements regarding the fund availability. 

Subsection (b) would require the Secretary to establish an advisory council for advising the Secretary on the best approaches for 

involving eligible institutions. 

Subsection (c) would require an institution receiving a grant, contract or cooperative agreement to provide relevant institutional statistical or demographic data to the Office. 

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

meeting of eligible institutions that receive support under this program to foster collaboration and capacity-building activities among 

eligible institutions and to disseminate information and ideas generated by such meetings. 

Section 5. Matching requirement 

This section would require that institutions awarded a grant, 

contract, or cooperative agreement make available the lesser of 25 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

percent of the amount of the non-Federal award or $500,000. The 

Secretary would be required to waive the matching requirement for 

any institution with no endowment, or an endowment worth less 

than $50,000,000. 

Section 6. Limitations 

This section would prohibit an eligible institution with a grant, 

contract, or cooperative agreement under this Act of more than 

$2,500,000 from receiving another grant, contract, or cooperative 

agreement unless every other eligible institution that has applied 

for a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement has received a 

grant, contract, or cooperative agreement. 

Section 7. Annual report and evaluation 

This section would require each institution awarded a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, to submit an annual report to the 

Secretary detailing its use of the funding. Also, the Secretary, in 

consultation with the Secretary of Education, would be required to 

review the reports and evaluate the program every two years. Finally, the Secretary would submit a report, including recommendations, to Congress based on the evaluation. 

Section 8. Definitions 

This section would define key terms in this Act. 

Section 9. Authorization of appropriations 

This section would authorize appropriations of $250 million for 

each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out this Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

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

would make no change to existing law. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS