PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 12, 1998
Science Integrity Act - Requires each Federal agency that issues or may issue regulations supported by scientific data, not later than January 1999, to issue regulations establishing procedures to ensure that the acquisition, interpretation, incorporation, and application of all such scientific data is subject to peer review by at least two but not more than five individuals from a list of peer reviewers created pursuant to this Act. Directs the head of each such agency to: (1) create, using the Federal Register, scientific and commercial journals, the National Academy of Sciences, and other similar resources, a list of specified individuals who are qualified and willing to perform peer review functions for the agency; and (2) select individuals from the list to peer review each proposed regulation of the agency that is supported by scientific data. Requires the head of an agency, upon receipt of all peer review reports for a proposed regulation, to publish in the Federal Register a notice of availability of those reports, and the scientific data reviewed therein, for public comment. Requires the head of an agency, within 30 days after the completion of the public comment period, to transmit to the Office of Regulations Integrity established under this Act: (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 agency to points of disagreement among the peer reviewers; and (4) all public comments received. Prohibits the proposed regulation from being issued in final form until 30 days after transmittal. Requires any recommendations of the Office in response to a transmittal to be provided to the agency, the President, and the Congress. Requires regulations issued establishing peer review procedures to include emergency exception provisions. Establishes an Office of Regulations Integrity to: (1) review regulations issued by each Federal agency establishing peer review procedures, and if the Office determines that such regulations do not represent the expert opinions of a majority of the scientists who will be carrying out peer reviews, or that such regulations are inadequate or inappropriate, to notify the agency, the President, and the Congress; (2) transmit to the President and the Congress an annual report on each agency's performance in complying with its peer review regulations; and (3) review regulations issued by an agency with supporting scientific data, if the Office has reason to believe such regulations were issued, or the scientific data were acquired, interpreted, incorporated, or applied in a manner significantly inconsistent with the peer review regulations issued by the agency, and if the Office finds these procedures to be inconsistent with such regulations, to notify the agency, the President, and the Congress.
People & committees
Rep. Pombo, Richard W. [R-CA-11] · R–CA
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 Government Management, Information and Technology.
Referred to House Science
Referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 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.
Referred to House Government Reform
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.3234 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.3234 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.3234 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.3234 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.