ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

42 U.S.C. § 19233Review of contracts and agreements

submitted 4 years ago by Pub. L. 117-167 to r/title-42-THE-PUBLIC-HEALTH-AND-WELFARE · 316 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

Federal research agencies can demand copies of a researcher's foreign contracts and require their institution to review them for conflicts. If a deal interferes with the funded work or duplicates it, the agency can remove that researcher, cut funding, or end the award, subject to privacy and due-process protections.

(a) In general: Alongside the powers agencies already have to fight waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement of federal money, each federal research agency also gets these powers: (1) it can ask an institution or organization applying for a research award to hand over supporting documents — including copies of contracts, grants, or other agreements tied to foreign appointments, foreign employment, or participation in a foreign talent recruitment program, plus other reported current and pending support for everyone listed as a covered individual on the application; (2) it can require that institution to review those documents itself for compliance with the agency's award rules, including its conflict-of-interest and conflict-of-commitment guidance; and (3) after getting and reviewing that information, and talking with the institution, it can remove or replace a covered individual from the award, cut the award's funding, or suspend or end the award — but only if the agency head decides the contracts or agreements found (A) get in the way of the funded work being done, or (B) duplicate what the award is already paying for. (b) Limitations: When using these powers, every agency must: (1) take reasonable steps to protect the privacy of the covered individuals and other people named in the submitted documents; (2) try to explain why it's asking for the documents; (3) only act on allegations proven by a preponderance of the evidence — meaning it's more likely than not that they're true; and (4) as much as practical, let the person being investigated respond, give their side, and appeal before the agency takes final action.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
(a) In general

In addition to existing authorities for preventing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement of Federal funds, each Federal research agency shall have the authority to—

(1)

require, upon request, the submission to such agency, by an institution of higher education or other organization applying for a research and development award, of supporting documentation, including copies of contracts, grants, or any other agreement specific to foreign appointments, employment with a foreign institution, participation in a foreign talent recruitment program and other information reported as current and pending support for all covered individuals in a research and development award application;

(2)

require such institution of higher education or other organization to review any documents requested under paragraph (1) for compliance with the Federal research agency’s award terms and conditions, including guidance on conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment; and

(3)

upon receipt and review of the information provided under paragraph (1) and in consultation with the institution of higher education or other organization submitting such information, initiate the substitution or removal of a covered individual from a research and development award, reduce the award funding amount, or suspend or terminate the award if the agency head determines such contracts, grants, or agreements include obligations that—

(A)

interfere with the capacity for agency-supported activities to be carried out; or

(B)

create duplication with agency-supported activities.

(b) Limitations

In exercising the authorities under subsection (a), each Federal research agency shall—

(1)

take necessary steps, as practicable, to protect the privacy of all covered individuals and other parties specified in the documentation submitted under paragraph (1) of such subsection;

(2)

endeavor to provide justification for requests for supporting documentation made under such paragraph;

(3)

require that allegations be proven by a preponderance of evidence; and

(4)

as practicable, afford subjects an opportunity to provide comments and rebuttal and an opportunity to appeal before final administrative action is taken.

Source credit: (Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title VI, § 10633, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1666.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 2022Enacted · Pub. L. 117-167 · 136 Stat. 1666

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 117-167 on 2022-08-09.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case