PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 557.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 19, 2007
Max Cleland Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act - Establishes within the National Science Foundation (NSF) an Office of Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology to: (1) award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements (assistance) to eligible institutions to provide educational instruction in digital and wireless network technologies; and (2) strengthen the national digital and wireless infrastructure by increasing national investment in telecommunications and technology infrastructure at eligible institutions. Requires the NSF Director to establish an advisory council on the best approaches for involving eligible institutions in supported activities and for reviewing and evaluating submitted proposals. Requires the council to include members from minority serving institutions.Makes the following institutions eligible for such assistance: (1) a historically Black college or university; (2) a Hispanic-, Alaska Native-, or Native Hawaiian-serving institution; (3) a tribally controlled college or university; or (4) an institution determined to have enrolled a substantial number of minority, low-income students who received assistance under the Higher Education Act of 1965. Provides a matching funds requirement.
People & committees
Sen. Kerry, John F. [D-MA] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 557.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Inouye under authority of the order of the Senate of 12/19/2007 with amendments. With written report No. 110-257.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Inouye under authority of the order of the Senate of 12/19/2007 with amendments. With written report No. 110-257.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1650 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 S.1650 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 S.1650 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 S.1650 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.