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 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 29, 2007
Mine Communications Technology Innovation Act - Requires the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish a program of research, development, and demonstration, including the establishment of best practices, adaptation of existing technology, and efforts to accelerate the development of next generation technology and tracking systems for mine communications.
Requires the Director to evaluate areas of research and development and best practices that will be most promising in protecting miner safety.
Authorizes the Director, in establishing the program, to focus on the following communications and tracking system characteristics: (1) systems that are likely to work in emergency situations; (2) systems that work in coal mines, with special attention paid to deep underground coal mines; (3) systems that provide coverage throughout all areas of the mine; (4) hybrid systems that use both wireless and infrastructure-based systems; (5) functionality for two-way and voice communications; (6) systems that serve emergency and routine communications needs; (7) the ability to work with existing legacy systems and to be quickly integrated; and (8) propagation environment characterization, performance metrics, and independently derived validation tests to verify performance for standards development.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Director to: (1) work with industry and federal agencies to develop consensus industry standards for communications in underground mines; and (2) develop and provide any needed measurement services to support implementation of these standards. Urges that the following issues be addressed: (1) the appropriate use of frequency bands and power levels; (2) matters related to interoperability; and (3) technology to prevent interference.
Authorizes appropriations for carrying out this Act for FY2009-FY2010, to be derived from amounts authorized under the America COMPETES Act.
People & committees
Rep. Matheson, Jim [D-UT-2] · D–UT
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 H12130)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H12130)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3877.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H12130-12131)
Mr. Matheson moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 259.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 110-411.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 110-411.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.3877 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.3877 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.3877 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.3877 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.