PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 4, 2007
Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act of 2007 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to direct the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Program to assist eligible educational institutions in acquiring, and augmenting use of, digital and wireless networking technologies to improve the quality and delivery of educational services at such institutions. Defines as eligible institutions: (1) historically Black colleges or universities, (2) a Hispanic-, Alaskan Native-, or Native Hawaiian-serving institution; (3) a tribally controlled college or university; or (4) an institution with a sufficient enrollment of needy students as defined under the Higher Education Act of 1965. Outlines authorized assistance activities. Directs the Secretary to: (1) establish an advisory council to advise on the best approaches toward maximum Program participation by eligible institutions; and (2) ensure that grant awards are made to all types of eligible institutions.
Requires Program assessment every three years by the National Academy of Public Administration.
(Sec. 3) Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Towns, Edolphus [D-NY-10] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Received in the Senate.
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): 331 - 59 (Roll no. 847). (text: CR H10021-10022)
House roll call 847 · 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): 331 - 59 (Roll no. 847).(text: CR H10021-10022)
House roll call 847 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10042-10043)
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. 694.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10021-10023)
Mr. Baird moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
Referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, 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 Education and Labor, 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 Education and Labor, 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.
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.694 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.694 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.694 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.694 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.