115 HR 1358 IH: Scientific Integrity Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2017-03-02
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I115th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 1358IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMarch 2, 2017Mr. Tonko (for himself, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Soto, Ms. Lee, Mr. Nadler, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Norton, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Beyer, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Moore, Mr. Rush, Ms. Meng, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Keating, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Takano, Mr. Cicilline, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Engel, Mr. Neal, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Speier, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mrs. Lawrence, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Butterfield, Ms. Matsui, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Perlmutter, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Pallone, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Polis, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Langevin, Ms. Brownley of California, Mr. Foster, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Crist, Mrs. Dingell, Ms. Esty, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Bera, Ms. Sánchez, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and TechnologyA BILLTo protect scientific integrity in Federal research and policymaking, and for other purposes.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Scientific Integrity Act. 2.Definition of Federal agencyIn this Act, the term Federal agency has the meaning given the term agency in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.
 3.Sense of Congress on scientific integrityIt is the sense of Congress that— (1)science and the scientific process should inform and guide public policy decisions on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, and protection of national security;
 (2)the public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions;
 (3)science, the scientific process, and the communication of science should be free from politics, ideology, and financial conflicts of interest; and
 (4)policies and procedures that ensure the integrity of the conduct and communication of publicly funded science are critical to ensuring public trust.
 4.Public communicationsExcept as provided in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, and consistent with privacy and classification standards, the head of each Federal agency that funds or conducts scientific research shall—
 (1)promote and maximize the communication and open exchange of data and findings to other agencies, policymakers, and the public of research conducted by a scientist or engineer employed or contracted by a Federal agency that funds or conducts scientific research; and
 (2)prevent the suppression or distortion of the data and findings described in paragraph (1). 5.PrinciplesSection 1009(a) of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 6620(a)) is amended to read as follows:

				(a)Principles
 (1)In generalNot later than 30 days after the date of enactment of the Scientific Integrity Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the head of each Federal agency that funds or conducts scientific research, shall develop and issue an overarching set of principles—
 (A)to ensure the communication and open exchange of data and findings to other agencies, policymakers, and the public of research conducted by a scientist or engineer employed or contracted by a Federal agency that funds or conducts scientific research, while protecting privacy, confidentiality, and national security; and
 (B)to prevent the suppression or distortion of the data or findings described in subparagraph (A). (2)Exchange of data and findingsIn order to promote the sharing of data and findings, as appropriate, the principles shall—
 (A)encourage the open exchange of data and findings of research undertaken by a scientist or engineer employed or contracted by a Federal agency that funds or conducts scientific research, while protecting privacy, confidentiality, and national security; and
 (B)be consistent with existing Federal laws, including chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code (commonly known as the Bayh-Dole Act).
						.
		6.Scientific integrity policies
 (a)In generalSection 1009 of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 6620) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

 (b)Scientific integrity policiesNot later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Scientific Integrity Act, the head of each Federal agency that funds or conducts scientific research shall—
 (1)develop and enforce a scientific integrity policy, including procedures, regarding the release of data and findings to other agencies, policymakers, and the public of research conducted by a scientist or engineer employed or contracted by that Federal agency; and
 (2)submit the scientific integrity policy to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Congress.
 (c)RequirementsA scientific integrity policy under subsection (b) shall— (1)be consistent with the principles established under subsection (a);
 (2)specifically address what is and what is not permitted or recommended under that policy, including procedures;
 (3)be specifically designed for the Federal agency; (4)be applied uniformly throughout the Federal agency; and
 (5)be publicly accessible and widely communicated to all employees and private contractors of the Federal agency.
 (d)ContentsAt a minimum, each scientific integrity policy under subsection (b) shall ensure that— (1)scientific conclusions are not made based on political considerations;
 (2)the selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions in the Federal agency are based primarily on the candidate’s expertise, scientific credentials, experience, and integrity;
 (3)personnel actions regarding scientists and engineers are not made based on political consideration or ideology;
 (4)scientists and engineers adhere to the highest ethical and professional standards in conducting their research and disseminating their findings;
 (5)the appropriate rules, procedures, and safeguards are in place to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the Federal agency, including procedures—
 (A)that allow for a scientist to review public release of materials that cite work from that scientist or otherwise claim to represent the scientist’s scientific opinion; and
 (B)to identify, evaluate the merits of, and address instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of scientific and technological information may be compromised;
 (6)scientific or technological information considered in policy decisions is subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate;
 (7)except as provided in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, and consistent with privacy and classification standards, each Federal agency makes publicly available scientific or technological findings that are considered or relied upon in policy decisions and regulatory proposals;
 (8)scientific and technical staff are able to ensure the scientific and technical content of scientific documents, reports, press releases, and fact sheets accurately represents the relevant scientific data and conclusions; and
 (9)procedures, including any applicable whistleblower protections, are in place as are necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the Federal agency relies in its decisionmaking or otherwise uses.
 (e)ApplicationA scientific integrity policy shall apply to each employee or contractor who conducts, handles, communicates, supervises, or manages federally funded scientific research for the Federal agency or for a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Federal agency.
 (f)Dissemination of scientific integrity policies and proceduresThe head of each Federal agency that funds or conducts scientific research shall— (1)make the scientific integrity policy available to the public on the Federal agency’s website;
 (2)disseminate the scientific integrity policy to each new employee and contractor; and (3)develop and require training on the scientific integrity policy for each employee or contractor who conducts, handles, communicates, or supervises scientific research for the Federal agency.
 (g)Definition of federal agencyIn this section, the term Federal agency has the meaning given the term agency in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code.. (b)Existing scientific integrity policiesNotwithstanding section 1009(b) of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 6620(b)), as amended by this Act, a scientific integrity policy that was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act may satisfy the requirements of section 1009 of that Act if the head of a Federal agency that funds or conducts scientific research—
 (1)makes a written determination that the policy satisfies the requirements of that section; and (2)submits the written determination and the policy to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Congress.
 (c)ClarificationNothing in this Act shall affect the application of United States copyright law. 7.NAPA reviewNot later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Public Administration—
 (1)to study the appropriateness of the scientific integrity policies under section 1009 of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 6620), as added by section 6 of this Act—
 (A)in promoting the communication and open exchange of data and findings to other agencies, policymakers, and the public of research conducted by scientists employed or contracted by a Federal agency; and
 (B)in preventing the suppression or distortion of the data and findings described in subparagraph (A); and
 (2)to recommend any improvements to the scientific integrity policies to achieve the purposes described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).


IV
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. CON. RES. 406
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 2, 2004
Mr. Payne (for himself, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Owens, Mr. Towns, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. Norton, Ms. Waters, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. Lee, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Ms. Watson, Ms. Majette, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Rush, Mr. Watt, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Ballance, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Davis of Alabama, and Mr. Clay) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Remembering the victims of the genocide that occurred in 1994 in Rwanda and pledging to work to ensure that such an atrocity does not take place again.

Whereas in August 1993, the government of President Juvenal Habyarimana and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) signed a peace agreement, paving the way for a power-sharing arrangement and the return of Rwandan refugees to their country;
Whereas shortly after signing the peace agreement, President Habyarimana deliberately and systematically delayed the setting up of the coalition government as agreed to by the parties, expanded the training of extremist groups, and intensified hate radio through Radio Mille Collines;
Whereas as part of the Arusha Accords the United Nations agreed to deploy 2500 peacekeeping troops, known as the United Nations Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR);
Whereas according to a UNAMIR report, on November 5, 1993, at a meeting chaired by President Habyarimana, the government decided to provide the Interhamwe and other youth militia weapons, including grenades and machetes with a directive to kill Tutsis, and according to the same report, distribution of the weapons began that same month;
Whereas on December 3, 1993, senior officers in the Rwandan Armed Forces warned General Romeo Dallaire, commander of United Nations forces in Rwanda, of increasing and systematic killings of civilians by the militia, and planned assassinations of senior officials in the coalition government, including the fact that President Habyarimana himself had authorized this bloody campaign;
Whereas throughout December 1993, a number of reports, including reports from the Ambassador of Belgium in Rwanda, UNAMIR officials, and human rights groups, confirmed widespread killings of civilians by pro-government militia and confirmed training of pro-government militia in government-run camps;
Whereas on January 6, 1994, General Dallaire reported to the United Nations that the killings of civilians by militia groups were well-organized and indicated that these killings would continue for the foreseeable future;
Whereas on January 10, 1994, UNAMIR officers met with an informant named Jean-Pierre, a commander in the Interhamwe militia, who told them of a large weapons cache intended for members of the Interhamwe militia;
Whereas on January 11, 1994, General Dallaire sent a confidential cable to United Nations headquarters informing United Nations officials about militia training and arms cache;
Whereas General Dallaire wrote to his superiors that the militias intended to kill a large number of Tutsi and moderate Hutu civilians, and he informed the United Nations peacekeeping department that he intended to seize the arms and asked for United Nations protection for the informant who provided the information;
Whereas on January 12, 1994, General Dallaire was told by United Nations headquarters that the United Nations mandate did not give him the authority to seize the arms cache and the United Nations would not provide protection to the informant, and instead, General Dallaire was ordered to provide the information to President Habyarimana and the ambassadors of Belgium, France, and the United States;
Whereas on February 21, 1994, extremists assassinated the Minister of Public Works, Felicien Gatabazi, and on February 20, 1994, Prime Minister-designate Twagiramungu escaped an assassination attempt;
Whereas the security situation in Rwanda deteriorated rapidly in late February 1994, with the slaughter of 70 civilians in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda;
Whereas on March 10, 1994, the National Republican Movement for Democracy (MRND) party leaders expressed frustration and anger that President Habyarimana did not consult them before he left for a meeting with President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and described his decision to go as “a serious political error”;
Whereas on April 6, 1994, the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, along with several senior government officials, were killed when their plane was shot down as it approached the capital of Rwanda;
Whereas on April 7, 1994, the Rwandan Armed Forces and the Interhamwe militia unleashed genocide against Tutsi civilians and moderate Hutu politicians when tens of thousands of innocent civilians, including women and children, were massacred;
Whereas ten Belgian peacekeeping troops assigned to protect the Rwandan Hutu Prime Minister were brutally murdered along with the Prime Minister;
Whereas on April 8, 1994, the Rwandan Patriotic Front launched an offensive to stop the ongoing genocide and to rescue 600 RPF troops trapped in Kigali, who were sent to protect RPF officials as agreed to in the Arusha Accords;
Whereas on April 8, 1994, France, Belgium, and the United States evacuated their citizens from Rwanda;
Whereas on April 11, 1994, an estimated 2,000 civilians were slaughtered at the Don Bosco school in Kigali where they sought shelter and briefly were protected by UNAMIR troops;
Whereas the civilians at the school were killed after the United Nations ordered UNAMIR troops to abandon the civilians and withdraw to the airport;
Whereas on April 14, 1994, Belgium withdrew its troops from Rwanda and a week later the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to withdraw UNAMIR troops at the height of the Rwandan genocide;
Whereas almost a month into the Rwandan genocide, the Clinton Administration refused to use the word genocide with respect to the situation in Rwanda and on April 28, 1994, the United Nations Security Council deliberately omitted the word genocide from a Council resolution in order to avoid its legal and international obligations to intervene;
Whereas on May 13, 1994, the United Nations Security Council began deliberation on a resolution to authorize a robust peacekeeping force for Rwanda;
Whereas the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Madeleine Albright, forced a delay on the United Nations Security Council vote because of funding issues;
Whereas on May 17, 1994, Ambassador Albright defended her position by saying “sending a U.N. force into a maelstrom in Rwanda without a sound plan of operations would be folly”;
Whereas on May 17, 1994, five weeks after the Rwandan genocide began, the United Nations Security Council authorized the deployment of 6,800 United Nations peacekeeping troops with a mandate to protect civilians;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing such deployment stated that “acts of genocide may have been committed”;
Whereas on June 22, 1994, the United Nations Security Council authorized the deployment of French forces to south-west Rwanda to create a “safe area” for fleeing civilians and subsequently fleeing militia and government leaders were given safe haven and protection by the French forces most of whom eventually fled to Zaire;
Whereas on July 4, 1994, the Rwandan Patriotic Front captured Kigali, the Hutu-led government fled to Zaire, the French ended their mission and were replaced by a United Nations peacekeeping force from Ethiopia, and the RPF formed an interim national unity government;
Whereas on August 17, 1994, Rwandan Defense Minister, Paul Kagame, warned the Government of Zaire not to allow members of the former Rwandan Armed Forces and the Interhamwe militia to train and launch attacks from Zaire;
Whereas in August 1994, the United States deployed troops to the Central Africa region to assist in the relief operation;
Whereas an estimated 2,000 United States troops participated in Operation Support Hope, however, the United States was criticized by some observers for not responding quickly to the Rwandan crisis and for its role in the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas, Rwanda having joined the United Nations Security Council in early 1994, the United Nations representative of the new Rwandan Government took his seat at the Security Council on September 1, 1994, after months of debate as to who should represent Rwanda in the United Nations;
Whereas on September 4, 1994, the commander of Ethiopia’s United Nations peacekeeping force in Rwanda stated that French troops provided protection and allowed former soldiers of the Rwandan Government to flee to Zaire;
Whereas in a newspaper interview, the commander stated that he saw French troops transporting former soldiers to Zaire, although French officials had said earlier that officials of the former Rwandan government would not be allowed to enter the safety zone;
Whereas in 1996 most of the refugees who fled to Zaire returned home;
Whereas in November 1994, the United Nations Security Council established an international tribunal to prosecute major suspects in the Rwanda genocide;
Whereas the new Government of Rwanda voted against the resolution because the resolution did not allow the death penalty;
Whereas, despite Rwanda's objections to the exclusion of the death penalty, the international tribunal was established in Arusha, Tanzania, and took its first case against a genocide suspect on January 10, 1997, in which it prosecuted Jean Paul Akayesu, a local government official;
Whereas the Gacaca courts, a community-based system of participatory justice, were created in Rwanda to address lower level offenders who remained in custody in Rwandan jails without trial, and to alleviate the burden that was placed on the judiciary system in Rwanda as a result of the sheer number of persons accused of participating in the genocide;
Whereas in March 1998, during his first visit to Africa, President Clinton stated in Kigali that “the international community must bear its share of responsibility for this tragedy”, and in a speech at the Kigali airport, President Clinton stated that “[a]ll over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror”; and
Whereas as of January 2004, 23 genocide suspects were on trial, eighteen senior officials were convicted, twenty suspects were awaiting trial, and six convicted officials were serving their sentences in Mali: Now, therefore, be it

That
Congress—
(1)remembers the victims of the genocide that occurred in 1994 in Rwanda and pledges to work to ensure that such an atrocity does not take place again;
(2)acknowledges that the international community, including the United States Government, failed the people of Rwanda and watched with indifference while hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were being killed;
(3)strongly supports assistance to the survivors of the Rwandan genocide;
(4)urges political and financial support for the Gacaca courts;
(5)acknowledges the heroic work of many individuals and human rights organizations for their campaign to help stop the genocide of Rwanda;
(6)expresses deep appreciation to General Romeo Dallaire for his tireless efforts to stop the genocide from occurring and for helping many Rwandese civilians in their time of need;
(7)accepts the fact that General Dallaire warned the United Nations on a number of occasions of an impending genocide and was ordered by his superiors not to take action;
(8)calls for an investigation of the role played by the United States Government prior to and during the Rwandan genocide, noting that the parliaments of Belgium and France both created commissions of inquiry to investigate the roles played by their respective governments and issued their findings; and
(9)strongly urges the creation of a bi-partisan Commission of Inquiry for Rwanda to investigate all aspects of the role played by the United States Government prior to and during the Rwandan genocide, with a strong mandate and subpoena power to access relevant documents and witnesses, a definite end date for completion of its work, and sufficient funding to cover necessary expenses.


109 HR 3144 IH: Respect for Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act of 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
2005-06-30
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I
109th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. R. 3144
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 30, 2005
Mr. Bartlett of Maryland (for himself, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Blunt, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Beauprez, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Weller, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Gilchrest, and Mr. Deal of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for a program at the National Institutes of Health to conduct and support research in the derivation and use of human pluripotent stem cells by means that do not harm human embryos, and for other purposes.

1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Respect for Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act of 2005.
2.FindingsThe Congress finds as follows:
(1)Stem cells may be derived from various sources, including adult tissue, umbilical cord blood, and living human embryos. The use of cells from embryos has drawn great interest in the scientific community but also raises very serious ethical concerns for many Americans, because as practiced today it requires the destruction of human embryos to obtain their cells.
(2)The President’s Council on Bioethics in its May 2005 White Paper: Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells, describes several potential methods to derive stem cells like those now derived through the destruction of embryos, but which would not involve doing harm to embryos. Some methods propose to involve embryos in ways that do not harm them, while others propose to reprogram adult cells to produce cells with the capabilities of embryonic stem cells without producing or involving embryos at all.
(3)Such proposals should be thoroughly tested in animal models before being applied to humans, to establish that they do not involve creating or harming human embryos.
(4)Several scientific reports also suggest that some subclasses of adult stem cells (derived from postnatal tissues, umbilical cord blood and placenta) show a flexibility comparable to that of stem cells now derived through the destruction of embryos.
(5)American scientists should be encouraged to pursue all ethical avenues of stem cell research and to explore morally uncontroversial alternatives to research requiring the destruction of human embryos.
3.Derivation of stem cells without harming embryos; research through National Institutes of HealthPart B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284) is amended by adding at the end the following:

409J.Basic and applied research on derivation and use of pluripotent stem cells without harming embryos
(a)DefinitionsIn this section, the following definitions apply:
(1)Human embryoThe term human embryo includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of the Respect for Life Pluripotent Stem Cell Act of 2005, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.
(2)Pluripotent stem cellThe term pluripotent stem cell means a cell that can in principle be differentiated to produce all or almost all the cell types of the human body, and therefore has the same functional capacity as an embryonic stem cell, regardless of whether it has the same origin.
(b)In generalWith respect to producing stem cell lines for important biomedical research, the Director of NIH shall, through the appropriate national research institutes, provide for the conduct and support of basic and applied research in isolating, deriving and using pluripotent stem cells without creating or harming human embryos. Such research may include—
(1)research in animals to develop and test techniques for deriving cells from embryos without doing harm to those embryos;
(2)research to develop and test techniques for producing human pluripotent stem cells without creating or making use of embryos; and
(3)research to isolate, develop and test pluripotent stem cells from postnatal tissues, umbilical cord blood, and placenta.
(c)Prohibitions regarding harm to human embryosResearch under subsection (b) may not include any research that—
(1)involves the use of human embryos; or
(2)involves the use of stem cells not otherwise eligible for funding by the National Institutes of Health; or
(3)involves the use of any stem cell to create or to attempt to create a human embryo, or
(4)poses a significant risk of creating a human embryo by any means.
(d)Authorization of appropriationsFor the purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 in fiscal year 2006, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Such authorization is in addition to other authorizations of appropriations that are available for such purpose..