PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 418.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Sep 18, 1998
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 such standard would affect. Requires such panel to: (1) be balanced in terms of the points of view represented; and (2) consist of persons who are able to give independent judgment and who have expertise in scientific or economic analysis related to the subject of the standard. Excludes from the panel any individual with a financial interest in the outcome of the standard, unless such individual fully discloses such interest to the Secretary. Makes the requirement to appoint such a panel inapplicable when the rule is completed through negotiated rulemaking.
People & committees
Rep. McInnis, Scott [R-CO-3] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 418.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. H. Rept. 105-730.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. H. Rept. 105-730.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 15.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 6 - 4.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
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.2661 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.2661 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.2661 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.2661 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.