PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 29, 1999
Sound Scientific Practices Act - Requires the Secretary of Labor, upon determining that a standard should be promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, to appoint a panel of individuals (in lieu of an advisory committee, as currently) to review and report on: (1) the scientific and economic data which form the basis for such standard; and (2) the relevance of the data to industries and workers which would be affected by such standard. Requires such panel to: (1) be broadly representative and balanced; and (2) include persons with expertise in scientific and economic analysis and persons with expertise relevant to any industry which would be subject to such standard. Provides that persons with substantial and relevant expertise shall not be excluded from a panel merely because they represent entities which may have potential interest in a standard under consideration if that interest is fully disclosed to the Secretary. Prohibits any peer reviewer representing such entity from being included on any panel considering a standard affecting a single entity only.
People & committees
Rep. Bonilla, Henry [R-TX-23] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 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 H.R.2639 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.2639 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.2639 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.2639 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.