TheWeekInCongress.com
Week Ending July 15, 200
S.432 A bill to establish a digital and wireless network technology program, and for other purposes.
BRIEF
The bill would establish and award grants, contracts of cooperative agreements to eligible institutions to provide instruction in digital and wireless network technologies and increase investment in telecommunications and technology at eligible institutions.
The bill has a minority focus so the institutions deemed eligible would include historically Black colleges or universities, Hispanic, Alaskan-Native or Native Hawaiian serving institutions, a tribally controlled institution or an institution determined to have a substantial number of minority or low-income students who received assistance under the Higher Education Act.
Matching funds would be required.
Sponsor: Senator George Allen (R-VA)
Vote: Passed Senate by Unanimous Consent (July 11, 2005)
Cost to the taxpayers: “CBO estimates that implementing S. 432 would cost $823 million over the 2006-2010 period.”
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.
MORE INFORMATION
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS (From the Committee report)
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION (From the Committee report)
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, 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.
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;
(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 non-Federal cost sharing (directly or through donations from public or private entities) in the amount of the lesser of 25 percent or $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.
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com.
No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.