PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Jul 23, 2019
Combating Sexual Harassment in Science Act of 2019
This bill addresses sexual harassment and gender harassment in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields by supporting research regarding such harassment and efforts to prevent and respond to such harassment.
This bill directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to award grants to institutions of higher education or nonprofit organizations (or their consortia) to
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
expand research into sexual harassment and gender harassment in the STEM workforce, including students and trainees; and
examine interventions for reducing the incidence and negative consequences of such harassment.
The NSF must convene a working group composed of representatives of federal statistical agencies to develop questions on sexual harassment and gender harassment in STEM departments in order to gather national data on the prevalence, nature, and implications of such harassment in institutions of higher education.
The NSF shall enter into agreements with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to (1) update a responsible conduct guide issued by the National Academies to include, among other things, updated professional standards of conduct in research and evidence-based practices for fostering a climate that is intolerant of sexual harassment and gender harassment; and (2) study the influence of such harassment in institutions of higher education on the career advancement of individuals in the STEM workforce.
The National Science and Technology Council shall establish an interagency working group to coordinate the federal science agencies' efforts to reduce the prevalence of sexual harassment and gender harassment involving grant personnel.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy must develop a uniform set of policy guidelines for such agencies to prevent and respond to reports of sexual harassment and gender harassment.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Eddie Bernice [D-TX-30] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7173-7175)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7173-7175)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 36.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7173-7176)
Ms. Johnson (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 115.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 116-153.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H. Rept. 116-153.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Research and Technology.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
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: May 28, 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.36 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.36 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.36 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.36 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.