H.R. 9892 (94th): Peer Review and Grants Management Act

Introduced:
Sep 29, 1975 (94th Congress, 1975–1976)
Status:
Died (Referred to Committee)
Sponsor
John Conlan
Representative for Arizona's 4th congressional district
Party
Republican
 
Status

This bill was introduced on September 29, 1975, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

Progress
Introduced Sep 29, 1975
Referred to Committee Sep 29, 1975
 
Full Title

A bill to amend the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 by providing for a peer review and grants management system that is equitable, open, and accountable to the scientific community and to Congress.

Summary

No summaries available.

Cosponsors
none
Committees

House Science, Space, and Technology

The committee chair determines whether a bill will move past the committee stage.

 
Primary Source

THOMAS.gov (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here. Data comes via the congress project.

Widget

Get a bill status widget for your website »

Citation

Click a format for a citation suggestion:

Notes

H.R. stands for House of Representatives bill.

A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the president to become law.

The bill’s title was written by its sponsor.

GovTrack’s Bill Summary

We don’t have a summary available yet.

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.


9/29/1975--Introduced.
Peer Review and Grants Management Act - Adds a new title to the National Science Foundation Act. Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to establish a Peer Review Office to administer a peer review system for the evaluation of all grant proposals submitted to the Foundation. Directs the Office to:
(1) maintain a list of peer reviewers available to evaluate grant proposals submitted to the Foundation;
(2) maintain a log of all solicitations by program officers of evaluations;
(3) maintain a list of all proposals submitted for funding during each fiscal year;
(4) furnish to applicants upon request the names and institutional affiliation of all peer reviewers and complete signed copies of all peer review evaluations; and
(5) report to Congress all information required to be maintained by the Office. Requires the Foundation to establish provisions for appellate procedures to independently review, upon request of any applicant, proposals disapproved by the Foundation. Directs the Foundation to establish a program to upgrade the science programs of small public and private four-year institutions of higher education in all areas of the country.
Requires the Foundation to provide complete information, data, and documents to applicants, Members and committees of Congress, and the general public.

House Republican Conference Summary

The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.


No summary available.

House Democratic Caucus Summary

The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.

So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.

We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.

Use the comment space below for discussion of the merits of H.R. 9892 (94th) with other GovTrack users.
Your comments are not read by Congressional staff.

comments powered by Disqus