PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Sep 23, 2024
Innovative Mitigation Partnerships for Asphalt and Concrete Technologies Act or the IMPACT Act
This bill requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish a temporary program that supports advanced production of low-emissions cement, concrete, and asphalt.
Specifically, the program must support research, development, and commercial application of production processes for low-emissions cement, concrete, and asphalt that are more cost-effective, durable, or resource-efficient (i.e., advanced production). The program must particularly focus on carbon capture technologies, energy-efficient processes, research involving novel materials, and other specified technologies and innovative processes.
DOE must select entities to implement relevant demonstration projects; eligible entities include government, nonprofit, educational, and private sector entities. DOE may terminate these projects if it determines that sufficient amounts of low-emissions cement, concrete, and asphalt that are produced through advanced production are commercially available at reasonable prices.
The program terminates seven years after the bill is enacted.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, Max L. [R-OH-7] · R–OH
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 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 voice vote. (text: CR H5635-5637)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5635-5637)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 7685.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5635-5638)
Mr. Lucas moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 434.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 118-522.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 118-522.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 38 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
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: 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.7685 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.7685 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.7685 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.7685 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.