PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 5, 2025
Risky Research Review Act
This bill establishes the Life Sciences Research Security Board to oversee the award of federal funding for high-risk life sciences research. High-risk life sciences research means the study of an organism, virus, or related product that could be misapplied to pose a significant threat to the public or could enhance the transmissibility or virulence of certain high-risk pathogens (e.g., Ebola).
Specifically, the bill establishes the board as an independent agency that must review proposed high-risk life sciences research, determine whether a federal agency may award funding for the research, and determine minimum required controls for funded research. Entities that are seeking federal funding must attest to whether their research is high-risk life sciences research. Agencies must certify the validity of these attestations and submit proposed high-risk life sciences research to the board. Agencies must also notify the board of intended awards for other life sciences research for potential review.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In making its determinations, the board must consider specified factors, including whether the benefits of the research outweigh the risks. The bill prohibits agencies from awarding federal funding for high-risk life sciences research without approval of the board or for life sciences research currently under board review. The board may also review awards that were made before the bill’s enactment.
Entities that fail to properly attest to the nature of their research may lose their eligibility for funding. Additionally, agency employees who fail to comply with the bill's requirements are subject to disciplinary action.
People & committees
Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Nov 30, 2025. 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.1864 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.1864 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.1864 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.1864 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-05 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Risky Research Review Act would create an independent federal board to decide whether agencies may fund certain potentially dangerous biological research. Agencies and researchers seeking federal funding would face new screening, disclosure, and review requirements. The board could direct agencies to temporarily suspend funding for some ongoing research while reviewing it. An emergency exception would allow temporary funding if the board did not notify the agency of a determination within 15 days of an expedited-review request.
This Act may be cited as the Risky Research Review Act.
There is established as an independent agency within the Executive Branch a board to be known as the Life Sciences Research Security Board
The mission of the Board shall be to issue an independent determination as to whether an agency may award Federal funding for proposed high-risk life sciences research, which shall be binding upon the agency.
An entity seeking Federal funding from an agency for life sciences research shall, under the penalty of perjury— (A) attest whether— (i) the life sciences research will constitute high-risk life sciences research; and (ii) the entity is performing active research with a select agent or toxin
With respect to Federal funding for life sciences research in progress awarded by an agency before the date of enactment of this Act that the Board determines may constitute high-risk life sciences research, the Board may— (A) direct the agency to temporarily suspend the Federal funding
If the Board does not notify the head of an agency with a determination under subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to proposed emergency research by the date that is 15 days after the date on which the head of the agency submits a request under paragraph (2)(A), the head of the agency may award Federal funding for the emergency research on a temporary basis.
The proposal would cover federal research funding through grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, and other instruments. It defines high-risk life sciences research as dual use research of concern involving a high-consequence pathogen, or gain of function research. The dual use definition addresses research that could be misapplied with little or no modification to cause significant harm and includes specified research categories. Gain of function research means an experiment that may enhance a high-consequence pathogen's transmissibility or virulence.
The term Federal funding means amounts awarded by an agency pursuant to an intramural or extramural grant, cooperative agreement, interagency agreement, contract, or other instrument.
The term high-risk life sciences research means life sciences research that is— (A) dual use research of concern involving a high-consequence pathogen; or (B) gain of function research.
means life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could— (i) be misapplied to do harm with no modification or only a minor modification; and (ii) pose a significant threat with potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, materiel, or national security
(B) includes— (i) life sciences research that could— (I) increase transmissibility of a pathogen within or between host species; (II) increase the virulence of a pathogen or convey virulence to a non-pathogen; (III) increase the toxicity of a known toxin or produce a novel toxin
The term gain of function research means a research experiment that may enhance the transmissibility or virulence of a high-consequence pathogen.
The high-consequence pathogen definition would cover wild-type or synthetic pathogens meeting specified spread and disease criteria, listed pathogens, and certain other categories. Seasonal influenza would be excluded unless manipulated to include genetic sequences from a pathogen described in the definition's inclusion provisions.
means a wild-type or synthetic pathogen that— (i) (I) is likely capable of wide and uncontrollable spread in human populations; and (II) would likely cause moderate to severe disease or mortality in humans; or (ii) is— (I) subject to subparagraph (B), influenza A virus; (II) classified under subgenus Sarbecovirus; (III) classified under subgenus Merbecovirus; (IV) Variola orthopoxvirus; (V) Mpox orthopoxvirus; (VI) Nipah henipavirus; (VII) Hendra henipavirus; (VIII) Ebola orthoebolavirus; (IX) Marburg marburgvirus; (X) Lassa mammarenavirus; (XI) Junin arenavirus; (XII) Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever orthonairovirus; (XIII) Hantaan orthohantavirus; (XIV) Sin Nombre orthohantavirus; (XV) Yersinia pestis; (XVI) a select agent or toxin, work with which poses a significant risk of deliberate misuse
any synthetic construct of a pathogen or category of pathogen described in this clause
does not include a seasonal influenza virus, unless a seasonal influenza virus has been manipulated to include genetic sequences from a pathogen described in subparagraph (A).
The board could expand the covered research and pathogen categories by majority vote and publication in the Federal Register. Within 15 days after notification of an addition to specified regulated agent or toxin lists, it would have to review the addition, vote on whether to incorporate it, and publish any addition it adopts.
any other category of life sciences research that the Board, by majority vote of the members of the Board, identifies and publishes in the Federal Register.
any other pathogen or category of pathogen that a majority of members of the Board— (aa) identifies as a high-consequence pathogen; and (bb) publishes in the Federal Register
Not later than 15 days after the date on which the Board receives a notification that a select agent or toxin has been added to a list of agent or toxins under a regulation described in paragraph (2), the Board shall— (A) review the select agent or toxin; (B) by majority vote of members of the Board, determine whether the select agent or toxin should be added into the definition of select agent or toxin under section 7901; and (C) publish any addition determined under subparagraph (B) in the Federal Register.
The proposal would establish an independent executive-branch agency with nine presidentially appointed U.S. citizens: an executive director, five nongovernmental life scientists, two nongovernmental national security experts, and one nongovernmental biosafety expert. Members could serve at most two four-year terms. Appointments other than the executive director would be due within 30 days of enactment.
There is established as an independent agency within the Executive Branch a board to be known as the Life Sciences Research Security Board
The President shall appoint, without regard to political affiliation, 9 individuals who are citizens of the United States to serve as members of the Board for not more than 2 terms of 4 years each, including— (A) the Executive Director appointed under section 7903(a); (B) 5 nongovernmental scientists in a life sciences field; (C) 2 nongovernmental national security experts; and (D) 1 nongovernmental biosafety expert.
The President shall make appointments, other than the Executive Director, to the Board not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this chapter.
Members would need impartiality and professional distinction and could not be employees, as defined through 5 U.S.C. 2105(a), at appointment or during the preceding three years. That referenced definition is not supplied. No more than four concurrent members could have the specified employment or subcontracting ties to the listed defense, security, energy, and infectious-disease agencies.
shall— (i) be impartial individuals; and (ii) be distinguished individuals of high national professional reputation in their respective fields who are capable of exercising the independent and objective judgment necessary to conduct an impartial assessment
may not be an employee on the date of the appointment or during the 3-year period preceding the date of the appointment.
The term employee means an individual described in section 2105(a) of title 5.
Not more than 4 concurrent members of the Board may be an employee, a subcontractor, a previous employee, or a previous subcontractor of— (A) the Department of Defense; (B) the Department of Homeland Security; (C) the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the Department of Health and Human Services; (D) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; or (E) the Department of Energy.
The President would have to consider recommendations from the designated congressional committee leaders before appointing members. Executive-director nominations and nominations for a member's second term would be referred to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Vacancies would have to be filled within 30 days using the original appointment process.
The President shall make appointments to the Board after considering individuals recommended by the chair and ranking member of the appropriate congressional committees.
Nominations for appointment to the position of Executive Director of the Board shall be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate for consideration.
A member of the Board who is recommended to serve a second term shall be nominated for appointment to the Board, and such nomination shall be referred pursuant to subparagraph (A).
Not later than 30 days after the date on which a vacancy on the Board occurs, the vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as specified for the original appointment.
The board would have 180 days after enactment to establish conflict-of-interest criteria in consultation with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, followed by appointment-related and periodic reviews. Members would have to disclose past or current participation in high-risk research. If the ethics director determined that such participation constituted a conflict, the board would have to mitigate or manage it, potentially through recusal or removal. Potential conflicts would trigger congressional notification deadlines of three days for the ethics director and 30 days when another board member learns of a potential conflict.
The Board, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, shall— (A) not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this chapter— (i) establish criteria to determine whether there is a conflict of interest with respect to any individual appointed to the Board
upon an appointment of a member to the Board under subsection (a)(1) thereafter, conduct a review of each individual nominated and appointed to the Board
periodically thereafter, conduct a review of each individual nominated and appointed to the Board
A member of the Board shall disclose whether the member has participated in or is currently participating in high-risk life sciences research.
If the Director of the Office of Government Ethics determines that participation by a member of the Board in high-risk life sciences research constitutes a conflict of interest, the Board shall take steps to mitigate or manage the conflict, which may include— (i) the recusal of the affected member from relevant discussions and determinations; and (ii) removal of the affected member from the Board.
Not later than 3 days after the date on which the Director of the Office of Government Ethics becomes aware that a member of the Board possesses a potential conflict of interest under the criteria established pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i), the Director of the Office of Government Ethics shall notify the chair and ranking member of the appropriate congressional committees of the potential conflict of interest.
Not later than 30 days after the date on which a member of the Board becomes aware that another member of the Board possesses a potential conflict of interest under the criteria established pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i), the member of the Board or the Executive Director of the Board shall notify the chair and ranking member of the appropriate congressional committees of the potential conflict of interest.
The general member-removal provision permits removal through impeachment and conviction, presidential action on specified grounds, or the board's conflict-of-interest process. A presidential removal under that provision would require a report to congressional committee leaders within 10 days, with publication subject to stated privacy and prosecution protections. The executive director has a separate for-cause removal rule. Members could maintain outside employment with ethics-director approval; members other than the executive director would receive board pay capped at Executive Schedule level II.
No member of the Board shall be removed from office, other than by— (i) impeachment and conviction; (ii) the action of the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, physical disability, mental incapacity, or any other condition that substantially impairs the performance of the member’s duties; or (iii) the Board in accordance with subparagraph (B).
not later than 10 days after the removal, the President shall submit to the chair and ranking member of the appropriate congressional committees a report specifying the facts found and the grounds for removal.
The President shall publish in the Federal Register each report submitted under clause (i), except that the President may, if necessary to protect the rights of a person named in the report or to prevent undue interference with any pending prosecution, postpone or refrain from publicly publishing any or all of the report until the completion of such pending cases or pursuant to privacy protection requirements in law.
Notwithstanding section 7902(b)(8), the Executive Director shall not be removed for reasons other than for cause on the grounds of inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, physical disability, mental incapacity, or any other condition that substantially impairs the performance of the responsibilities of the Executive Director or the staff of the Board.
a member of the Board, other than the Executive Director, shall be compensated at a rate— (A) proposed by the Executive Director and approved by the Board; (B) not to exceed the rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule
Subject to terms and approval determined by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, a member of the Board may maintain outside employment and affiliations while serving on the Board.
The President would have 45 days after enactment to appoint an executive director with Senate approval. The director would need to be a distinguished life scientist who was not, and had not been during the preceding three years, an employee as defined by the bill or a participant in federally funded high-risk research. The director would chair and administer the board, serve full time, and receive no more than Executive Schedule level II pay.
Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this chapter, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 individual who is a citizen of the United States, without regard to political affiliation, to the position of Executive Director of the Board for a term of 4 years.
is a distinguished scientist in a life sciences field; and (B) is not, and has not been for the 3-year period preceding the date of the appointment— (i) an employee; or (ii) a participant in high-risk life sciences research supported by Federal funding.
The term employee means an individual described in section 2105(a) of title 5.
serve as chair of the Board; (C) be responsible for the administration and coordination of the responsibilities of the Board; and (D) be responsible for the administration of all official activities conducted by the Board.
be compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule; (2) serve the entire tenure as Executive Director as 1 full-time employee
The board could hire up to 25 additional staff without regard to the specified competitive-service appointment provisions. Staff would need U.S. citizenship, integrity, impartiality, and life-sciences or national-security expertise and could not participate in federally funded research at appointment or during service. Conditional hires awaiting clearance could not access or have responsibilities involving classified or otherwise restricted materials and would have to be dismissed if they failed to qualify for necessary clearances.
Without regard to the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5 governing appointments in the competitive service, the Board may appoint not more than 25 additional personnel
Each individual appointed to the staff of the Board— (A) shall be a citizen of the United States of integrity and impartiality; (B) shall have expertise in the life sciences field or the national security field; and (C) may not be a participant in any federally funded research activity on the date of the appointment or during the course of service of the individual on the Board.
The Board may offer conditional employment to a candidate for a staff position of the Board pending the completion of security clearance background investigations. During the pendency of such investigations, the Board shall ensure that any such employee does not have access to, or responsibility involving, classified or otherwise restricted materials.
If the Board determines that an individual hired on a conditional basis under clause (i) is not eligible or otherwise does not qualify for all security clearances necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the position for which conditional employment has been offered, the Board shall immediately terminate the individual’s employment.
Board members and candidates for executive-director and staff positions would receive accelerated security-clearance and access processing subject to standard procedures. Board nominees would have to qualify before Senate committee consideration for confirmation, and executive-director candidates before appointment. The designated congressional committee leaders and staff would be granted all clearances and accesses held by the board, including relevant special and compartmented program access.
All members of the Board shall be granted all the necessary security clearances and accesses, including to relevant Presidential and department or agency special access and compartmented access programs, in an accelerated manner, subject to the standard procedures for granting such clearances. All nominees for appointment to the Board shall qualify for the necessary security clearances and accesses prior to being considered for confirmation by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
A candidate for Executive Director of the Board shall be granted all security clearances and accesses held by the Board, including to relevant Presidential and department or agency special access and compartmented access programs in an accelerated manner, subject to the standard procedures for granting such clearances.
The President shall ensure that a candidate for Executive Director of the Board qualifies for the security clearances and accesses described in subparagraph (A) prior to appointment.
A candidate for appointment to the staff of the Board shall be granted all security clearances and accesses held by the Board, including to relevant Presidential and department or agency special access and compartmented access programs, in an accelerated manner, subject to the standard procedures for granting such clearances.
The chair and ranking member of the appropriate congressional committees, and designated committee staff, shall be granted all security clearances and accesses held by the Board, including to relevant Presidential and department or agency special access and compartmented access programs.
Each agency would have to assign at least one full-time employee to provide technical assistance and nonvoting support. Agency representatives and employees could not directly or indirectly influence board determinations about research funded by their agency. The board would have to exhaust unused federally owned office options and request agency facilities when it needed secure space for classified information. Agencies would have to accommodate those requests in a timely manner.
The head of each agency shall designate not less than 1 full-time employee of the agency as the representative of the agency to— (i) provide technical assistance to the Board; and (ii) support the review process of the Board with respect to the agency under section 7906 in a non-voting staff capacity.
A representative of an agency designated under subparagraph (A) and any employee of an agency may not directly or indirectly influence in any capacity a determination by the Board under section 7906 with respect to life sciences research funded by the agency.
In selecting office space for the Board, the Board shall exhaust options for unused office spaces owned by the Federal Government as of the date of enactment of this chapter.
In order to review or discuss classified information, the Board shall request an accommodation from relevant agencies to access sensitive compartmented information facilities on an as-needed basis.
The head of an agency from which the Board requests an accommodation under subparagraph (A) shall accommodate the request in a timely manner.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee would oversee the board and agency compliance with its requirements and have access to board records. The board would have to cooperate with oversight, brief the committees at least quarterly, and respond to an information request from any member of Congress within 30 days.
The term appropriate congressional committees means the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.
have continuing legislative oversight jurisdiction in the Senate with respect to the official conduct of the Board and agency compliance with requirements issued by the Board; and (B) have access to any records provided to or created by the Board.
have continuing legislative oversight jurisdiction in the House of Representatives with respect to the official conduct of the Board and agency compliance with requirements issued by the Board; and (B) have access to any records provided to or created by the Board.
The Board shall have the duty to cooperate with the exercise of oversight jurisdiction described in this subsection.
Not less frequently than quarterly, the Board shall brief the appropriate congressional committees on the work of the Board.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 30 days after the date on which the Board receives a request for information from a Member of Congress, the Board shall respond to the request.
The board could issue regulations, demand necessary agency records including classified information, and review classified research. In disputes with agencies or other entities, it would have final authority over the bill's research classifications, definitions, and whether proposed funding requires its review.
prescribe regulations to carry out the responsibilities of the Board
direct an agency to make available to the Board additional information and records, including information designated as classified or otherwise protected from disclosure
review any classified research conducted or funded by any agency to determine whether the research would be considered high-risk life sciences research
In any dispute with an agency or entity relating to the classification of life sciences research under this chapter, the Board shall retain final and ultimate authority in— (1) determining whether the life sciences research is high-risk life sciences research, dual use research of concern involving a high-consequence pathogen or gain of function research; (2) interpreting definitions in section 7901; and (3) determining whether a proposed Federal award for life sciences research is subject to the review process of the Board under section 7906(a)(1).
The board would have to consult congressional committees and agency heads before establishing review procedures, publish those procedures within 180 days after its initial members are appointed, and begin review duties within 270 days after enactment. The review section itself would take effect 270 days after enactment.
not later than 180 days after the date of appointment of the initial members of the Board under section 7902, publish procedures in the Federal Register establishing the process for the review by the Board under section 7906
prior to the establishment of the procedures under paragraph (1), consult with the appropriate congressional committees and heads of agencies for purposes of developing such procedures
not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this chapter, begin carrying out the duties described in section 7906.
(g) Effective date This section shall take effect on the date that is 270 days after the date of enactment of this chapter.
Starting 180 days after enactment, agencies would generally be prohibited from awarding federal funding for high-risk research without board approval. They also could not award funding for other life-sciences research once notified that the board was conducting the specified review, until a final determination. This prohibition would begin 90 days before the review section takes effect; the supplied text does not clearly resolve how approval would operate during that interval.
The head of an agency may not award Federal funding for— (A) high-risk life sciences research without approval by the Board under section 7906(a)(1)(B); or (B) life sciences research if the Board, in accordance with section 7906(a)(2)(A)(ii), submits notification to the agency under section 7906(a)(2)(B)(i) that the Board is reviewing the Federal funding for life sciences research under section 7906(a) until the date on which the Board makes a final determination with respect to the proposed Federal funding.
Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this chapter.
(g) Effective date This section shall take effect on the date that is 270 days after the date of enactment of this chapter.
Applicants for federal life-sciences funding would have to state, under penalty of perjury, whether their proposed research is high-risk and whether they are actively researching a select agent or toxin as defined by the bill. A positive attestation would require disclosure of funding sources for all active research. Agencies would send those disclosures to the board, which could seek additional information.
An entity seeking Federal funding from an agency for life sciences research shall, under the penalty of perjury— (A) attest whether— (i) the life sciences research will constitute high-risk life sciences research; and (ii) the entity is performing active research with a select agent or toxin; and (B) if the entity makes a positive attestation under subparagraph (A), disclose the source of funding for all active research.
The head of an agency that receives a disclosure from an entity under paragraph (1)(B) shall submit to the Board the disclosure.
The Board may contact an entity that submits a disclosure under paragraph (1)(B) to request additional information relating to the disclosure.
Funding agencies would have to establish screening processes in consultation with the board, certify both affirmative and negative high-risk statements, refer high-risk proposals, and retain certification records for board review. They would notify the board at least 30 days before a planned life-sciences award, including the applicant's statement and agency certification. Agencies would publish their prepayment and preaward procedures within 180 days after the board publishes its process and provide additional award information the board determines necessary for oversight.
The head of an agency making an award of Federal funding to an entity that makes a positive attestation under paragraph (1)(A)(i) shall— (i) submit to the Board the high-risk life sciences proposal; and (ii) using the process established by the head of the agency under paragraph (4), certify the validity of the attestation.
The head of an agency making an award of Federal funding to an entity that makes a negative attestation under paragraph (1)(A)(i) shall— (i) review the attestation; and (ii) using the process established by the head of the agency under paragraph (4), certify the validity of the attestation.
The head of each agency that awards Federal funding for life sciences research, in consultation with the Board, shall establish and implement a process for identifying proposals from entities seeking Federal funding for life sciences research from the agency that will constitute high-risk life sciences research.
maintain records of the certification process described in paragraph (3) for each application for Federal funding in accordance with chapter 31 of title 44; and (B) make the records maintained under subparagraph (A) available for audit and review upon request by the Board.
Not later than 30 days before the date on which the head of an agency plans to award Federal funding to an entity for life sciences research, the head of the agency shall submit to the Board a notification of the proposed Federal funding.
The notification of Federal funding for life sciences research required under paragraph (1) shall include the attestation and certification required under subsection (b).
Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Board publishes the process of the Board in the Federal Register pursuant to section 7904(c), the head of each agency shall publish on the website of the agency prepayment and preaward procedures of the agency
Upon request by the Board, the head of an agency shall provide any information relating to Federal funding awards for life sciences research determined necessary by the Board to provide oversight of the agency.
If changed circumstances could turn federally funded research into high-risk research contrary to its earlier attestation, the entity conducting the research would have to pause within 24 hours after identifying the change and notify the agency in writing within five days, detailing the changes. The agency would decide whether the research is high-risk: a negative determination would permit resumption, while a positive determination would require immediate referral to the board.
If, during the course of life sciences research in progress performed by an entity supported by Federal funding from an agency, circumstances arise such that the life sciences research in progress may constitute high-risk life sciences research in contravention to the attestation of the entity
not later than 24 hours after the identification of the change in circumstance, pause the life sciences research in progress; and (B) not later than 5 days after the date of the identification of the change in circumstance, submit to the head of the agency a written notification
includes a detailed description of each change in circumstance that may transform the life sciences research in progress into high-risk life sciences research
if the head of the agency makes a negative determination under subparagraph (A), inform the entity that the entity may resume the life sciences research in progress; and (C) if the head of the agency makes a positive determination under subparagraph (A), immediately submit to the Board a notification of the Federal funding of high-risk life sciences research in progress for review under section 7906(a)(1).
An applicant or recipient that knowingly failed to provide a truthful attestation or promptly report a qualifying change would have to be referred for suspension and debarment proceedings relating to federal funding. Contractors knowingly violating the attestation requirement would also be referred. The text requires referral for proceedings rather than automatic exclusion.
If an entity seeking or receiving Federal funding from an agency knowingly fails to make a true attestation under subsection (b)(1) or promptly notify the agency of a change in circumstance in accordance with subsection (f)(1), the head of the agency shall refer the entity to the appropriate entity for suspension and debarment proceedings relating to the receipt of Federal funding.
In the case of contractor working under a contract with an agency who knowingly violates subsection (b)(1), the head of the agency shall refer the contractor to the appropriate entity for suspension and debarment proceedings relating to the receipt of Federal funding.
Agency personnel responsible for proposal oversight and review who knowingly violated the specified certification duties would face inspector-general referral. Knowing employee violations would require discipline and permanent revocation of any applicable security clearance, with the President responsible when the agency head is the violator. Agencies would report employee violations within 360 days of enactment and at least every 90 days afterward, identifying the employees, violations, and dates. The board would publish the number of violations within five days after receiving a report.
The Board shall refer any employee of an agency responsible for overseeing and reviewing research proposals relating to Federal funding that knowingly fails to comply with subsection (b)(3) to the inspector general of the agency.
The head of an agency employing an employee who knowingly violates any provision of subsection (b)(3) (or, in the case of the head of an agency who violates any provision of subsection (b)(3), the President) shall impose on that employee— (i) disciplinary action in accordance with chapter 75 of title 5 or an equivalent procedure of the agency; and (ii) permanent revocation of any applicable security clearance held by the employee.
Not later than 360 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than once every 90 days thereafter, the head of each agency shall submit to the Board and the appropriate congressional committees a report
Each report submitted under clause (i) shall include, with respect to a violation described in that clause— (I) the name and professional title of each employee engaged in the violation; (II) a detailed explanation of the nature of the violation; and (III) the date of the violation.
Not later than 5 days after the date on which the Board receives a report under clause (i), the Board shall publish on a publicly accessible and searchable website the amount of violations that have been committed under clause (i).
Recipients conducting federally funded high-risk research would have to continuously disclose planned and actual subcontracts and subawards made with that funding and obtain agency consent before awarding them. Agencies would forward disclosures within 30 days. The board could request more information and access annual reports from the agency, the research entity, and its subcontractors or subawardees.
During the course of high-risk life sciences research in progress performed by an entity supported by Federal funding from an agency, the entity shall— (A) continuously disclose to the head of the agency any subcontracts or subawards made or planned to be made with the Federal funding; and (B) obtain consent from the head of the agency before awarding a subcontract or award described in subparagraph (A).
Not later than 30 days after the date on which the head of an agency receives a disclosure under paragraph (1), the head of the agency shall submit to the Board the disclosure.
The Board may contact an entity that submits a disclosure under paragraph (1) to request additional information relating to the disclosure.
upon request, the Board shall have access to every annual report of— (i) the agency; (ii) the entity performing the high-risk life sciences research; and (iii) any subcontractor or subawardee of an entity described in clause (ii).
Within 120 days after receiving the specified notification of high-risk research, the board would have to review it and decide by majority vote whether funding may be awarded or continued. It would also set minimum biosafety containment, engineering and operational controls, biosecurity controls, and personnel assurance controls by majority vote.
Not later than 120 days after the date on which the Board receives a notification from an agency under section 7905(c) relating to proposed Federal funding for life sciences research that constitutes high-risk life sciences research or the Board receives a notification from an agency under section 7905(f)(2)(C) relating to Federal funding of research in progress that constitutes high-risk life sciences research, the Board shall— (A) review the proposed Federal funding or high-risk life sciences research in progress; (B) by a majority vote, determine whether the agency may award the proposed Federal funding or continue to award the Federal funding for the high-risk life sciences research in progress
by a majority vote, determine with respect to the high-risk life sciences research funded by the proposed Federal funding or Federal funding for high-risk life sciences research in progress— (i) the minimum required biosafety containment level, engineering controls, and operational controls; (ii) the minimum required biosecurity engineering controls and operational controls; and (iii) the minimum required personnel assurance controls.
The board could screen other proposed life-sciences awards to decide whether they need high-risk review. It could also audit research funded before enactment and direct agencies to temporarily suspend pre-enactment funding for ongoing research it considered potentially high-risk, obtain complete funding information, and vote on whether funding could continue.
With respect to proposed Federal funding by an agency for life sciences research, the Board may— (i) review the proposed Federal funding; and (ii) determine whether the Board should review the proposed Federal funding in accordance with paragraph (1).
With respect to life sciences research performed with Federal funding awarded by an agency before the date of enactment of this chapter, the Board may review and audit the research in order to assess the compliance of the agency with the provisions of this chapter.
With respect to Federal funding for life sciences research in progress awarded by an agency before the date of enactment of this Act that the Board determines may constitute high-risk life sciences research, the Board may— (A) direct the agency to temporarily suspend the Federal funding; (B) require the agency to provide complete information on the Federal funding in order for the Board to complete a review of the life sciences research under paragraph (1); and (C) by a majority vote of members of the Board, determine whether the agency may continue the Federal funding.
Funding decisions would have to consider threats to public health, public safety, large populations of animals and plants, and national security; the probability of public-health benefits; whether work would occur wholly or partly abroad; reasonably anticipated material and information risks; anticipated benefits and whether they outweigh risks; and whether lower-risk procedures could obtain the benefits. No single listed factor's presence or absence would decide the outcome.
whether the research poses a threat to public health; (B) whether the research poses a threat to public safety; (C) whether the research has a high probability of producing benefits for public health; (D) whether the research poses a threat to large populations of animals and plants; (E) whether the research poses a threat to national security; (F) whether the research is proposed to be conducted in whole or at least in part in a foreign country; (G) the reasonably anticipated material risks of the research; (H) the reasonably anticipated information risks of the research; (I) the reasonably anticipated benefits of the research; (J) whether the reasonably anticipated benefits of the research outweigh the reasonably anticipated risks; and (K) whether the benefits of the research could be obtained through procedures posing lower risks.
The presence or absence of any factor under paragraph (1) shall not be decisive with respect to the determination of the Board under subsection (a)(1)(B).
The executive director would have to notify the agency within five days of a funding decision. The agency could request a discussion within 10 days after receiving notice, and the board would have to schedule it in a timely manner. Denial of a proposed award would also require notification to the designated congressional committees when the agency is notified.
Not later than 5 days after the date on which the Board makes a determination under subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to Federal funding by an agency, the Executive Director of the Board shall notify the head of the agency of the determination.
Not later than 10 days after receiving a notification from the Board under paragraph (1), the head of an agency may request a meeting with the Board to discuss the determination of the Board.
The Board shall schedule a meeting requested by the head of an agency under subparagraph (A) in a timely manner.
If the Board determines that the head of an agency may not proceed with an award of proposed Federal funding under this section, the Executive Director of the Board shall notify the appropriate congressional committees when the Board notifies the head of the agency.
High-risk research related to a public-health emergency or specific national-security concern could receive expedited review. The agency would need to request it and explain the need to the board and congressional committees. If the board did not notify the agency of a determination within 15 days of the request, the agency could temporarily award funding. The text does not expressly specify a maximum duration or separate termination procedure for that temporary funding.
the term emergency research means high-risk life sciences research submitted to the Board that relates to a public health emergency or addresses a specific national security concern.
include a request for expedited review in the notification required under section 7905(c); and (B) on the date of the notification described in subparagraph (A), submit to the Board and the appropriate congressional committees a notification that explains why the specific public health emergency or national security concern necessitates expedited review under this subsection.
The Board shall establish an internal process under which the Board will give proposed emergency research expedited review under this section.
If the Board does not notify the head of an agency with a determination under subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to proposed emergency research by the date that is 15 days after the date on which the head of the agency submits a request under paragraph (2)(A), the head of the agency may award Federal funding for the emergency research on a temporary basis.
The board could establish a nongovernmental scientific advisory panel after publishing rules on expertise, conflicts, and recusal. Panelists could not advise on matters where they had an identified or perceived conflict. The board would report panelists' names, qualifications, and conflicts to the designated congressional committees within 30 days of establishing a panel and immediately report personnel changes.
The Board may establish a scientific panel of nongovernmental experts to advise the Board in the review by the Board of life sciences research pursuant to this chapter.
The Board shall establish and publish in the Federal Register procedures and policies relating to conflicts of interest, recusal, expertise, and related matters before the establishment of the panel
An individual serving on the panel established under paragraph (1) may not advise the Board on any matter with respect to which the individuals has an identified or perceived conflict of interest.
Not later than 30 days after the date on which the Board establishes a panel established under paragraph (1), the Board shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that includes the names, qualifications, and any identified or perceived conflicts of interest of individuals who serve on the panel.
Upon a change of personnel on the panel established under paragraph (1), the Board shall immediately submit to the appropriate congressional committees an update to the report
The bill ties the first board decision report to establishment of the optional scientific panel: it would be due within 360 days after that event and annually afterward. Reports would cover findings, decisions, research organizations and downstream participants, and significant problems, including members' requested views. Reports would be public except for a required classified annex. The text provides no alternative first-report deadline if no panel is established.
Not later than 360 days after the date on which the Board establishes the panel described in subsection (e)(1), and annually thereafter, the Board shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report, which shall include a classified annex
the findings of the Board; (B) the determination of the Board; (C) the name and location of the entity proposing the life sciences research; (D) the name and location of any recipient of a subaward or subcontractor of an entity proposing life sciences research and the nature of the participation of such a recipient or subcontractor; and (E) an account of significant challenges or problems, including procedural or substantive challenges or problems, that arise during the course of the work of the Board, including the views of any member of the Board who wishes to have those views included in the report.
On the date on which the Board submits a report required under paragraph (1), the Board shall make the report, other than the classified annex included in the report, available on a website.
The Board may establish a scientific panel of nongovernmental experts
The Comptroller General would periodically audit the board. The bill would authorize appropriations of $30 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2035; it does not itself appropriate that money. The authorization's end date does not expressly terminate the board or its review duties.
7907. GAO Audits The Comptroller General of the United States shall periodically audit the Board.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Board to carry out this chapter $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2035.
The bill would add board members to 5 U.S.C. 13103(f), under a provision headed financial disclosure reports of board members. The supplied text identifies the addition but does not reproduce the existing provision, so its complete effect on disclosure requirements cannot be established from this source set.
(c) Financial disclosure reports of Board members Section 13103(f) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— (1) in paragraph (11), by striking and at the end; (2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and; and (3) by adding at the end the following: (13) a member of the Life Sciences Research Security Board established under section 7902 of title 31.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated November 30, 2025, records introduction in the House on March 5, 2025, and referral that day to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and additionally to the Energy and Commerce Committee. This snapshot does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2025-11-30T06:56:42Z.
2025-03-05: Introduced in House
2025-03-05: Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-05. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated rider was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced-text version. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the absence of riders in other versions or accompanying materials, or document any amendment's attachment history.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places meeting the earmark definition was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced-text version. This conclusion is limited to that text; formal earmark status and the contents of other versions or accompanying materials are not established.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains narrow exceptions affecting the scope and timing of its funding controls. These findings identify the beneficiaries and treatment without judging their justification.
Agencies and recipients proposing high-risk research related to a public-health emergency or specific national-security concern could use a narrow funding exception: after a qualifying expedited-review request, the agency could temporarily award funding if the board had not notified it of a determination within 15 days. This relaxes the bill's ordinary requirement for board approval before high-risk research receives federal funding.
The head of an agency may not award Federal funding for— (A) high-risk life sciences research without approval by the Board under section 7906(a)(1)(B)
the term emergency research means high-risk life sciences research submitted to the Board that relates to a public health emergency or addresses a specific national security concern.
include a request for expedited review in the notification required under section 7905(c); and (B) on the date of the notification described in subparagraph (A), submit to the Board and the appropriate congressional committees a notification that explains why the specific public health emergency or national security concern necessitates expedited review under this subsection.
If the Board does not notify the head of an agency with a determination under subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to proposed emergency research by the date that is 15 days after the date on which the head of the agency submits a request under paragraph (2)(A), the head of the agency may award Federal funding for the emergency research on a temporary basis.
Entities researching seasonal influenza would benefit from an express exclusion from the high-consequence pathogen definition, unless the virus has been manipulated to include genetic sequences from a pathogen described in that definition's inclusion provisions. This narrows the reach of the bill's high-risk research controls because both branches of the high-risk definition depend on a high-consequence pathogen, directly or through the gain of function definition. The exclusion does not create a blanket exemption for an entity's other research or remove generally applicable life-sciences funding notifications.
does not include a seasonal influenza virus, unless a seasonal influenza virus has been manipulated to include genetic sequences from a pathogen described in subparagraph (A).
The term high-risk life sciences research means life sciences research that is— (A) dual use research of concern involving a high-consequence pathogen; or (B) gain of function research.
The term gain of function research means a research experiment that may enhance the transmissibility or virulence of a high-consequence pathogen.
The head of an agency may not award Federal funding for— (A) high-risk life sciences research without approval by the Board under section 7906(a)(1)(B)
Not later than 30 days before the date on which the head of an agency plans to award Federal funding to an entity for life sciences research, the head of the agency shall submit to the Board a notification of the proposed Federal funding.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Nov 30, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI