A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
S. 5663, known as the PROOF Act, establishes a program at the National Science Foundation to fund research awards for institutions of higher education to reproduce federally funded research. The bill requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to use a competitive, merit-review process when giving out these awards. It strictly bans the Director and grant applicants from engaging in discrimination or granting preferential treatment based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or other federally protected characteristics. Institutions receiving funds must use them to cover reasonable costs associated with replicating research, such as student tuition and stipends, materials, travel, and analysis costs. Eligible students receiving support must be U.S. citizens, nationals, or permanent residents enrolled or intending to enroll full-time in a STEM master's program. Finally, the Director must submit regular reports to specific committees in the Senate and House of Representatives detailing the awards, students supported, and an analysis of the research reproducibility.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +6
Does this put more money into scientific research?
The bill authorizes awards through the National Science Foundation specifically to support the replication and reproducibility of federally funded scientific research.
- Scored +5
Does this put more money into public schools?
The bill establishes a program at the National Science Foundation to fund research awards and student support at institutions of higher education.
- Scored +5
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Young adults pursuing STEM master's degrees benefit directly from tuition assistance and stipends provided through the new research replication program.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3(a)(1) and Section 3(d)(1): These provisions authorize awards to institutions of higher education to support the replication of federally funded research and cover reasonable costs like student tuition, stipends, materials, and travel. This is a positive outcome because it helps students fund their education while contributing to the transparency and reliability of scientific knowledge.
-
Section 3(a)(2) and Section 3(c)(2): These provisions explicitly prohibit the Director and grant applicants from discriminating against, granting preferential treatment to, or imposing adverse treatment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or other characteristics prohibited under Federal law. This ensures that the grant process remains fair and holds officials accountable to equal treatment under the law.
-
Section 3(e): This section requires the Director to submit annual and periodic reports to congressional committees summarizing the total number of awards, students supported, and an analysis comparing the original research findings with the replicated research. This is beneficial because it provides transparency to Congress and the public regarding how taxpayer-funded programs are performing.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 3(d)(2): This provision restricts student support exclusively to individuals who are U.S. citizens, nationals, or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and who meet specific degree requirements. This could be viewed as a negative consequence or burden because students who do not fit these specific citizenship or residency statuses are excluded from receiving financial support and stipends under the program, regardless of their academic merit.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill authorizes awards through the National Science Foundation specifically to support the replication and reproducibility of federally funded scientific research. Does this put more money into public schools? — The bill establishes a program at the National Science Foundation to fund research awards and student support at institutions of higher education. Does this reduce what student borrowers owe or repay? — The bill provides funds to cover tuition and stipends for eligible students enrolled in STEM master's programs, reducing their financial burden.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — Eligible students enrolled in STEM master's programs receive direct financial support for tuition, stipends, and travel expenses. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults pursuing STEM master's degrees benefit directly from tuition assistance and stipends provided through the new research replication program. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Providing tuition support and stipends helps lower-income students afford advanced education in STEM fields.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires regular reports to congressional committees detailing awards, supported students, and analyses comparing original and replicated research.
- 9/30/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- Introduced in Senate