PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 6, 2007
H-Prize Act of 2007 - (Sec. 3) Directs the Secretary of Energy to: (1) award competitive cash prizes biennially to advance the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of hydrogen energy technologies; and (2) enter into an agreement with a private, nonprofit entity to administer the prize competitions.
Authorizes the Secretary to use appropriated funds for the cash prize program, including certain funds from other federal agencies.
(Sec. 4) Designates prize-eligible categories, including: (1) advancements in certain hydrogen technologies, components, or systems related to hydrogen production, storage, distribution, and utilization; (2) prototypes of hydrogen-powered vehicles or other hydrogen-based products that meet or exceed certain performance criteria; and (3) transformational changes in technologies for hydrogen distribution or production that meet or exceed far-reaching criteria, including minimal carbon emissions, and which may include cost criteria designed to facilitate the eventual market success of a winning technology.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to consult with designated agencies when establishing criteria for such awards.
(Sec. 6) Declares that the federal government shall not, by virtue of offering or awarding a prize under this Act, be entitled to any intellectual property rights derived as a consequence of, or direct relation to, the participation by a registered participant in a competition authorized by this Act. States that this Act shall not be construed to prevent the federal government from negotiating a license for the use of intellectual property developed for a prize competition under this Act.
(Sec. 7) Authorizes the Secretary to require registered participants in the awards program to waive claims against the federal government and the administering entity (except claims for willful misconduct) for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits arising from the participants' participation in a competition under this Act. Prohibits the Secretary, however, from requiring a registered participant to waive claims against the administering entity arising out of any unauthorized use or disclosure by the entity of the registered participant's trade secrets or confidential business information.
Sets forth liability insurance or alternative financial responsibility requirements for registered participants with regard to third party or federal government claims against them.
(Sec. 8) Instructs the Secretary to report to Congress regarding: (1) identification of the award recipient; (2) description of the technologies developed by each award recipient; and (3) specific actions being taken toward commercial application of all technologies with respect to which a prize has been awarded under this Act.
(Sec. 9) Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2017.
People & committees
Rep. Lipinski, Daniel [D-IL-3] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Star Print ordered on the bill.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 8 (Roll no. 433). (text: CR H6027-6029)
House roll call 433 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 8 (Roll no. 433).(text: CR H6027-6029)
House roll call 433 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6047)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 632.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6027-6031)
Mr. Lipinski moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 103.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 110-171.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science and Technology. H. Rept. 110-171.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Ordered to be Reported 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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.632 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.632 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.632 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.632 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.