PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2003
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 - Directs the President to implement a National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program to promote Federal nanotechnology research, development, demonstration, education, technology transfer, and commercial application activities as necessary to ensure continued U.S. leadership in nanotechnology research and development (R&D) and to ensure effective coordination of such R&D across Federal agencies and scientific and engineering disciplines.Requires that Program activities be designed to: (1) support nanotechnology R&D through grants to individual and interdisciplinary teams of investigators and through establishment of interdisciplinary research centers and advanced technology user facilities; (2) ensure that solicitation and evaluation of proposals under the Program encourage interdisciplinary research; (3) expand education and training of undergraduate students in interdisciplinary nanotechnology science and engineering; (4) accelerate the commercial application of nanotechnology innovations in the private sector; and (5) ensure that societal and ethical concerns will be addressed by establishing a research program to identify such concerns, ensuring that research results are widely disseminated, and integrating such research with nanotechnology R&D.Directs the President to: (1) establish or designate an interagency committee on nanotechnology R&D to oversee Program planning, management, and coordination; (2) establish an advisory committee on nanotechnology to make recommendations to Federal agencies for implementing the Program; and (3) establish a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct periodic reviews of the Program.
People & committees
Rep. Boehlert, Sherwood [R-NY-24] · R–NY
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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 405 - 19 (Roll no. 167).
House roll call 167 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 405 - 19 (Roll no. 167).
House roll call 167 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 766.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of amendments which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE - The Committee of the Whole resumed debate under the five minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the E.B. Johnson of Texas amendment under the five minute rule.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Bell amendment, the Chair put the question on the adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Bell demanded a recorded vote and made a point of no quorum. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment and the point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Bell amendment under the five minute rule.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Bell amendment, the Chair put the question on the adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Bell demanded a recorded vote and made a point of no quorum. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment and the point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
Debate - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Bell amendment under the five minute rule.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 766.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Lee Terry to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 219 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 766 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Scienc now printed in the bill. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 219. (consideration: CR H3715-3735)
Rule H. Res. 219 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 219 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 766 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Scienc now printed in the bill. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 48.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 108-89. (text of measure as reported in House: CR 5/7/2003 H3722-3724)
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science. H. Rept. 108-89.(text of measure as reported in House: CR 5/7/2003 H3722-3724)
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Science.
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.766 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.766 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.766 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.766 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.