[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 574 Introduced in House (IH)]







106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 574

 To require peer review of scientific data used in support of Federal 
                  regulations, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1999

  Mr. Pombo (for himself, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Norwood, and Mr. Coburn) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
 Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
 To require peer review of scientific data used in support of Federal 
                  regulations, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Science Integrity Act''.

SEC. 2. PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 2001, the head of each 
Federal department or agency which issues or may issue regulations 
supported by scientific data shall issue regulations under this section 
establishing procedures to ensure that the acquisition, interpretation, 
incorporation, and application of all such scientific data is subject 
to peer review by at least 2 but not more than 5 individuals from the 
list created pursuant to subsection (b).
    (b) List of Peer Reviewers.--The head of each Federal department or 
agency which issues or may issue regulations supported by scientific 
data shall create, using the Federal Register, scientific and 
commercial journals, the National Academy of Sciences, and other 
similar resources, a list of individuals who are qualified and willing 
to perform peer review functions for the department or agency. Such 
list shall include only individuals who--
            (1) by virtue of advanced education, training, or 
        avocational, academic, commercial, research, or other 
        experience, are competent to review the appropriateness of any 
        scientific methodology supporting regulations that the 
        department or agency may issue, the validity of any conclusions 
        drawn from the supporting data, and the competency of the 
        research or preparation of the scientific data; and
            (2) are not otherwise employed by or under contract with 
        the department or agency.
    (c) Selection of Peer Reviewers.--The head of each department or 
agency shall select individuals from the list created pursuant to 
subsection (b) to peer review each proposed regulation of the 
department or agency that is supported by scientific data. No 
individual shall be selected who--
            (1) has actively participated in advocating or opposing the 
        issuance of the proposed regulation;
            (2) has a direct financial interest in the proposed 
        regulation; or
            (3) is employed by or related to any person having a direct 
        financial interest in the proposed regulation.
    (d) Provision of Scientific Data to Peer Reviewers.--Peer reviewers 
selected under subsection (c) shall be provided with all scientific 
data used in support of the proposed regulation, and any other related 
data requested by the peer reviewer that is reasonably available to the 
department or agency.
    (e) Expenses.--Peer reviewers selected under subsection (c) shall 
be reimbursed by the department or agency for expenses directly 
incurred in performing the peer review, but shall not otherwise be 
compensated for performing the peer review.
    (f) Availability for Public Comment.--Upon receipt of all peer 
review reports for a proposed regulation, the head of a department or 
agency shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the 
availability of those reports, and the scientific data reviewed 
therein, for public comment. The department or agency shall make such 
reports and scientific data readily available upon request and shall 
receive public comment thereon for a period of 60 days after the 
publication of notice in the Federal Register.
    (g) Congressional Review.--Within 30 days after the completion of a 
public comment period described in subsection (f), the head of a 
department or agency shall transmit to the Congress--
            (1) each peer review report;
            (2) all scientific data used in support of the proposed 
        regulation or requested by a peer reviewer;
            (3) the response of the head of the department or agency to 
        points of disagreement, if any, among the peer reviewers; and
            (4) all public comments received.
The proposed regulation may not be issued in final form until 30 days 
after the transmittal under this subsection.
    (h) Final Issuance.--The publication of a final regulation peer 
reviewed under this section shall include a summary of the related peer 
review reports and any points of disagreement among the peer reviewers, 
and the response of the head of the department or agency to the peer 
review reports.
    (i) Emergency Exception.--Regulations issued under subsection (a) 
shall include provisions that permit the issuance of regulations 
supported by scientific data in emergency circumstances without peer 
review, on the condition that peer review be completed within 90 days 
after such issuance.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF PEER REVIEW.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``peer review'' means 
identifying technical or scientific deficiencies of a proposal, 
assessing whether the methodology and analysis supporting a proposal 
conform to the standards of the academic and scientific community, and 
determining whether a proposal is supported by sufficient credible 
evidence.
                                 <all>