Enacted in response to concerns that the United States could lose its historical advantages in scientific and technological innovation, the 2007 America COMPETES Act ( P.L. 110-69 ) sought "to invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States." Containing eight titles and dozens of provisions affecting at least a half-dozen federal agencies, the principal policy contributions of the America COMPETES Act were the establishment of the doubling path policy for certain federal physical sciences and engineering (PS&E) research accounts and the authorization (or reauthorization) of various federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs. Major provisions of the America COMPETES Act, and its successor, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-358 ), have expired. Most of the funding authorizations in the America COMPETES Act spanned the three-year period between FY2008 and FY2010. Congress extended these authorizations for a second three-year period—through FY2013—as part of the 2010 reauthorization. Congress has not enacted legislation to authorize funding for COMPETES Acts programs and agencies since then. Bills were introduced, but not enacted, in the 113 th Congress. Legislators in the 114 th Congress have also moved to reauthorize the COMPETES Acts. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 ( H.R. 1806 ) and the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2015 ( H.R. 1898 ), as well as several stand-alone bills containing selected provisions from these reauthorization measures, have been introduced and, in some cases, passed by the House. In the Senate, Members have introduced a bill called the Energy Title of America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 ( S. 1398 ). This report provides an overview of the COMPETES Acts for readers seeking background and legislative context. It was written to serve as both a primer and a reference document. It includes a description and legislative history of the acts, a summary of the broad policy debate, and an examination of the implementation status of selected COMPETES-related programs and policies. This report also provides analysis of major bills to reauthorize the COMPETES Acts from the 113 th and 114 th Congresses. For authorized and appropriated funding for COMPETES-related accounts through FY2013, see CRS Report R42779, America COMPETES Acts: FY2008 to FY2013 Funding Tables , by [author name scrubbed]. The contemporary federal conversation about scientific and technological advancement generally centers on concerns about prosperity and security. The possibility that the United States has or could lose its historic strengths in scientific and technological advancement—and therefore has or could lose the prosperity and security attributed to that advancement—has become the central rationale for a portfolio of otherwise disparate federal programs, policies, and activities. Sometimes identified as "innovation" or "competitiveness" policy, these programs, policies, and activities address education, tax, patent, immigration, economic development, research and development, telecommunications, and other policy issues—either alone or in combination—that policymakers perceive as critical to the U.S. scientific and technological enterprise. The 2007 America COMPETES Act ( P.L. 110-69 ) was an example of this type of policymaking. Designed to "invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States," the law authorized $32.7 billion in appropriations for certain federal PS&E research accounts, STEM education activities, and innovation-related programs and policies between FY2008 and FY2010. In particular, the law established what is commonly referred to as the "doubling path policy" for PS&E research. This policy provided annual increases in authorized funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) and Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) accounts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Office of Science account at the Department of Energy (DOE)—with the implicit goal of doubling combined funding for these accounts over a seven-year period (from an FY2006 baseline). Some of the STEM education and innovation-related programs and policies authorized by the act include the Math Now program at the Department of Education (ED), the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program at NIST, and the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) at DOE. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-358 ) reaffirmed the central policy thrusts of the America COMPETES Act. It, too, sought to "invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States." However, under the reauthorization, funding for the PS&E doubling path accounts grew more slowly—they would have doubled over an 11-year period instead of a 7-year period—and STEM education provisions focused more on college and university-level programs rather than on programs targeting earlier grades. Other provisions in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 allow federal agencies to offer innovation prizes and direct the Department of Commerce (DOC) to establish a new loan guarantee program for manufacturers, as well as a regional innovation program. The reauthorization also repealed certain STEM education program authorizations, particularly those that did not receive appropriations between FY2008 and FY2010 (e.g., Math Now). Overall, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 authorized $45.5 billion in appropriations between FY2011 and FY2013. Congressional debate about the America COMPETES Act and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 was substantively similar. Advocates for the COMPETES Acts argued that additional support for R&D in the physical sciences and engineering, and in STEM education, would lead to innovation and improve U.S. competitiveness. They noted that many experts consider innovation, particularly technological innovation, to be a driving force behind U.S. global economic competitiveness and national prosperity. As such, many observers consider innovation a crucial national asset. Proponents of the acts further asserted that the United States is at risk of losing its innovation advantage. They argued that a combination of external pressures and internal weaknesses threatens the U.S. global position. For example, they noted that changes in the industrial bases and educational attainment rates of rapidly developing countries like China and India have led many analysts to conclude that these countries are able to compete for a growing percentage of the world's high-value jobs and industries. These global changes, advocates asserted, appeared to be accompanied by perceived weaknesses in areas that have long been U.S. strengths. In particular, the acts' proponents raised concerns about federal funding for research in the physical sciences and engineering and about the education and training of U.S. scientists, engineers, and technicians. This case was more fully laid out in the National Academies publication Rising Above the Gathering Storm , which is widely believed to have contributed to the shape and scope of the America COMPETES Act. The argument for, as well as major provisions in, the America COMPETES Act can also be traced to a 2006 proposal by President George W. Bush, known as the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). Opposition to the acts tended to fall into three broad categories: (1) questions about fundamental assumptions, (2) preferences for alternative policies or approaches, and (3) cost. For example, some analysts disputed fundamental assumptions driving provisions designed to increase the number of STEM graduates, arguing that there is a lack of evidence of extensive STEM workforce shortages and that the bigger challenge is a dearth of attractive employment opportunities in STEM fields. Other analysts preferred to use regulatory and tax policy tools to achieve the acts' objectives, arguing that direct federal investment in R&D in the physical sciences and engineering and in STEM education could distort markets. Finally, opponents raised concerns about costs, arguing that proposed funding increases were too expensive in light of the federal deficit and debt. The following sections describe enactment of, and selected legislative action related to, the COMPETES Acts. The America COMPETES Act ( H.R. 2272 , then called the 21 st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007) was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology on May 10, 2007. As introduced, the bill represented a package of five bills that had previously passed the House: H.R. 362 (10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act), H.R. 363 (Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act), H.R. 1867 (National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007), H.R. 1868 (Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007), and H.R. 1068 (To Amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991). H.R. 2272 passed the House by voice vote on May 21, 2007. The Senate received H.R. 2272 and on July 19, 2007, struck all language after the enacting clause and substituted the language of S. 761 (America COMPETES Act). The Senate then passed H.R. 2272 , as amended, by unanimous consent. The House and Senate agreed to a conference, and on August 1, 2007, the conferees submitted a conference report ( H.Rept. 110-289 ) containing both the agreed-upon bill text and a joint explanatory statement. In final form, H.R. 2272 (America COMPETES Act) passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by a vote of 367-57 in the House. The President signed the bill, which became P.L. 110-69 , on August 9, 2007. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 ( H.R.