PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Apr 30, 2002
Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to award grants to consortia of institutions of higher education or nonprofit organizations with experience in plant biotechnology research (or both) to establish regional plant genome and gene expression research centers. Authorizes the Director to establish matching fund requirements. Includes among authorized center activities: (1) basic plant genomics research and genomics applications; (2) basic research that will contribute to the development or use of innovative plant-derived products; (3) basic research on alternative uses for plants and plant materials; and (4) basic research and dissemination of information on the ecological and other consequences of genetically engineered plants.Requires the Director to: (1) award grants to such institutions, organizations, or consortia to establish research partnerships for supporting the development of plant biotechnology targeted to the needs of the developing world; and (2) encourage inclusion of historically black colleges or universities, hispanic-serving institutions, or tribal colleges or universities in consortia that enter into such partnerships. Requires institutions, organizations, or consortia, to be eligible to receive a grant, to enter into a partnership with at least one research institution in at least one developing nation. Permits such a partnership to include for-profit companies involved in plant biotechnology. Includes among authorized activities: (1) basic genomic research on crops grown in the developing world; (2) basic research in plant biotechnology that will advance and expedite the development of improved cultivars; (3) basic research that could lead to the development of technologies to produce pharmaceutical compounds such as vaccines and medications in plants that can be grown in the developing world; and (4) research on the impact of plant biotechnology on the social, political, economic, and environmental conditions in developing countries.Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Nick [R-MI-7] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2399)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2399)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2051.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2399-2404)
Mr. Smith (MI) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 252.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 107-422.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 107-422.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Research.
Referred to the House Committee on Science.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2051 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2051 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2051 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2051 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.