PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 30, 2008
Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act of 2008 - Directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program to award prizes to eligible persons for achievement in one or more applications of nanotechnology for: (1) improvement of the environment, consistent with Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); (2) development of alternative energy that has the potential to lessen the dependence of the United States on fossil fuels; (3) improvement of human health, consistent with regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); (4) development of consumer products; and (5) advancement in the field of nanoelectronics.
Describes an eligible person as an individual who is: (1) a citizen or legal resident of the United States; (2) a member of a group that includes U.S. citizens or legal residents; or (3) an entity that is incorporated and maintains its primary place of business in the United States.
Requires establishment of a board to administer and make awards under such program by: (1) holding a financial award competition and making an award to the first competitor to meet such criteria as the board shall establish; and (2) recognizing (without financial remuneration) an eligible person for superlative achievement in one or more of the nanotechnology applications described above.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the board to contract with a private organization to administer such a financial award competition. Prohibits the federal government from acquiring an intellectual property right in any product or idea by virtue of the submission of such product or idea in any such competition.
Requires the board to submit annual reports to Congress on the nanotechnology award program established by this Act.
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
Referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
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.6661 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.6661 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.6661 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.6661 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.