Peer Review and Grants Management Act
Latest action. Referred to House Committee on Science and Technology.
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.
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Introduced in House" stage on September 29, 1975. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
4 steps remain before this bill could become law.
The record's latest action, on September 29, 1975: Referred to House Committee on Science and Technology.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the House
- Passage by the Senate
- The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?
Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.
In the 94th Congress (1975-76), 588 of the 21,097 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 2.8 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.
This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
JOHN CONLAN (R-AZ) introduced it on September 29, 1975. No cosponsors are recorded.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
How long has it been in play?
It was introduced on September 29, 1975, 18657 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 18657 days ago, on September 29, 1975.
Measures do not carry over. Anything the 94th Congress has not finished by January 3, 1977 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- HouseIn committee, no floor vote yet
- SenateAwaits House passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers