America Competes Act

From OpenCongress Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Back to main bill page for votes, text and more.

The America COMPETES Act (H.R.2272) (or America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Sciencea Act), is also known as the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act, is a large funding bill which would authorize a variety of federal science, technology and research programs, as well as fund state education grants.


Article summary (how summaries work)
The bill would authorize a variety of federal science, technology and research programs, as well as fund state education grants. Included in the bill is $150 million in grants for K-12 science, technology, mathematics and engineering programs and nearly $300 million in grants to establish masters and bachelors degree programs for training math and science teachers.[1]


Contents

Current status

The bill was introduced on May 10, 2007 in the House by Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.). On August 2, the bill passed the House in a vote of 367-57 (Roll Call #802).[1] It passed the Senate in a voice vote later that day, and was sent to the White House for approval. It was signed into law by President Bush.[1]


House action


To invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.
Sponsor: Rep. Barton Gordon [D, TN-6]Committees: House Science and Technology
House Record Vote (802)
August 02, 2007
On Agreeing to the Conference Report: H R 2272 21st Century Competitiveness Act
On Agreeing to the Conference Report
Percentage of 'Aye' votes: 84% - Passed
Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 1/2 (50%)
367
Ayes
57
Nays
 DemRep Other
Ayes2241430
Nays1560
Abst.630

Same for all scorecards:

Scored vote

Scorecard: FreedomWorks 2007 House Votes

Org. position:

Description:

"This bill contains $43 billion in new funding over the next 3 years for at least 40 new federal programs. The scope of the funding for the bill after it emerged from conference dramatically inflated from the original House bill, which called for only $23 billion in funding for 20 new programs. It not only represents the reckless spending that has come to characterize Congress, but also is a drastic and irresponsible expansion of the size of government. “Nay” votes scored."

(Original scorecard available at: http://www.freedomworks.org/keyvotes/2007_house.php?state=0&submit=Go)

Scored vote

Scorecard: Information Technology Industry Council 2007-2008 House Scorecard

Org. position: Aye

Description:

"Legislation that provides for investment in innovation through research and development, and aims to improve the competitiveness of the United States."

(Original scorecard available at: http://www.itic.org/clientuploads/scorecards/13307_ITI_VoteGuide_FINAL.pdf)

Scored vote

Scorecard: U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2007 House Scorecard

Org. position: Aye

Description:

"By a 367-57 vote, the House passed H.R. 2272, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act. The Chamber strongly supported this legislation, which emphasizes more funding for math and science education and science focused research and development, allowing the United States to remain competitive. The legislation lays the foundation for significantly increased federal investment for math and science research and education by authorizing funding for numerous programs such as the National Science Foundation; the National Institute of Standards and Technology; the Technology Innovation Program; and a new cutting-edge energy research agency, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy. If America is to remain competitive in the global, knowledge-based economy, it needs to restore excellence in math and science education and research. The COMPETES Act, which was signed into law on August 9, will do much to bolster these efforts."

(Original scorecard available at http://www.uschamber.com/issues/legislators/07htv_house.htm

Senate action

The Senate had considered similar bill, S. 761 (S. 761) which was also titled the "America COMPETES Act." The Senate passed that bill on April 25, 2007, and then incorporated this measure into H.R. 2272 as an amendment on July 19, 2007.[1]


A bill to invest in innovation and education to improve the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy.
Sponsor: Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV]Committees:
Senate Record Vote (146)
April 25, 2007
On Passage of the Bill (S. 761 As Amended )
On Passage of the Bill
Percentage of 'Aye' votes: 88% - Bill Passed
Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 1/2 (50%)
88
Ayes
8
Nays
 DemRep Other
Ayes48382
Nays080
Abst.220

Same for all scorecards:

Scored vote

Scorecard: Information Technology Industry Council 2007-2008 Senate Scorecard

Org. position: Aye

Description:

"Legislation that provides for investment in innovation through research and development, and aims to improve the competitiveness of the United States."

(Original scorecard available at: http://www.itic.org/clientuploads/scorecards/13307_ITI_VoteGuide_FINAL.pdf)

Senate Record Vote (139)
April 24, 2007
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table DeMint Amdt. No. 928 )
On the Motion to Table
Percentage of 'Aye' votes: 62% - Motion to Table Agreed to
Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 1/2 (50%)
62
Ayes
35
Nays
 DemRep Other
Ayes46142
Nays2330
Abst.210
Same for all scorecards:
Scored vote

Scorecard: Club For Growth 2007 Senate Scorecard

Org. position:

Description:

"Vote to kill a DeMint amendment to exempt smaller businesses from having to comply withSection 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The pro-growth vote was "nay" because the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations stifle economic growth and are overly burdensome on businesses. Passed 62-35."

(Original scorecard available at: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/05/the_2007_congressional_scoreca_1.php)

Scored vote

Scorecard: American Conservative Union 2007 Senate Scorecard

Org. position: Aye

Description:

"The Senate killed an amendment allowing small businesses to opt out of the most burdensome reporting provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act regulating reporting of publicly-traded companies on the stock exchange. ACU favors this exemption, but the Senate defeated it April 24, 2007, by a vote of 62-35."

(Original scorecard available at: http://www.acuratings.org/)


Senate Record Vote (140)
April 24, 2007
On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Coburn Amdt. No. 917 )
On the Motion to Table
Percentage of 'Aye' votes: 54% - Motion to Table Agreed to
Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 1/2 (50%)
54
Ayes
43
Nays
 DemRep Other
Ayes43101
Nays5371
Abst.210
Same for all scorecards:
Scored vote

Scorecard: Club For Growth 2007 Senate Scorecard

Org. position:

Description:

"Vote to kill a Coburn amendment that would express the sense of the Senate that Congress has a moral obligation to offset the cost of new government spending in order to reduce deficit spending and the national debt. The pro-growth vote was "nay" because the resolution would have encouraged fiscal responsibility. Passed 54-43."

(Original scorecard available at: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/05/the_2007_congressional_scoreca_1.php)

Senate Record Vote (144)
April 25, 2007
On the Amendment (Coburn Amdt. No. 921 )
On the Amendment
Percentage of 'Aye' votes: 39% - Amendment Rejected
Required percentage of 'Aye' votes: 1/2 (50%)
39
Ayes
57
Nays
 DemRep Other
Ayes1371
Nays4791
Abst.220
Same for all scorecards:
Scored vote

Scorecard: Club For Growth 2007 Senate Scorecard

Org. position:

Description:

"Vote on the Coburn amendment that would discontinue the Advanced Technology Program. The pro-growth vote was "yea" because this program is nothing more than corporate welfare. Instead, the money should be left in the private sector where it can be more effectively allocated. Failed 39-57."

(Original scorecard available at: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/05/the_2007_congressional_scoreca_1.php)


Articles and resources

See also

References

    External resources

    External articles

    Toolbox

    OpenCongress is a joint project of the Participatory Politics Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation. Questions? Comments? Contact Us