PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 16, 2008
American Innovation Act of 2008 - Directs the Secretary of Energy to carry out the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Innovation Prize program to award cash prizes to eligible contestants to advance the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of alternative fuel vehicles, including: (1) a $10 billion grand prize for the production of a prototype alternative fuel vehicle meeting fuel efficiency, emissions, cost, and commercial application criteria; and (2) $100 million in additional prizes for substantial advancements in specific areas of alternative vehicle technologies, components, or systems or for transformational changes in technology.
Establishes the Innovation Trust Fund in the Treasury, to be funded with amounts attributable to the exploration for, development of, or production of oil, natural gas, or oil shale located on federal lands in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer amounts in the Fund that are not required to carry out this Act to the account for public debt reduction.
Declares without force or effect all existing federal law prohibiting spending appropriated funds to conduct oil or natural gas leasing and preleasing activities for any area of OCS.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Revokes all presidential: (1) withdrawals from leasing under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of areas for exploration for, and development and production of, oil or natural gas; and (2) authorities to withdraw from disposition any unleased OCS lands, except in the interest of natural security or military operations.
Amends the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to repeal provisions: (1) withdrawing public lands within the coastal plain of ANWR from entry or appropriation under U.S. mining laws and from operation of U.S. mineral leasing laws; and (2) prohibiting production, or development leading to production, of oil and gas from ANWR.
People & committees
Rep. Price, Tom [R-GA-6] · R–GA
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 Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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 Natural Resources, 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 Natural Resources, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.6910 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.6910 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.6910 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.6910 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.