PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 16, 2007
Swift Approval, Full Evaluation Drug Act or the SAFE Drug Act - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) order postmarket studies of approved drugs upon receiving evidence of a significant issue regarding the safety or lack of effectiveness of such a drug; and (2) establish restrictions on the distribution or use of the drug during the period in which the study is conducted.
Directs the Secretary to amend regulations to require postmarket studies of drugs approved under an accelerated approval process for new drugs for serious or life-threatening illnesses.
Deems a drug or device to be misbranded if there is a failure to comply with requirements under this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits discrimination against individuals who provide information in an investigation or proceeding regarding a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, censorship, distortion, or suppression of scientific information, research, or analysis, or the willful disclosure of false, misleading, or incomplete scientific information.
Authorizes Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officers, employees, and sponsored individuals to publish in peer-reviewed journals and other scientific publications and make oral presentations at professional society meetings and other meetings of their peers, with certain exceptions.
Prohibits an FDA officer or employee from directing any other FDA officer or employee to: (1) censor, distort, or suppress any scientific research, analysis, opinion, or recommendation; or (2) willfully disclose scientific information that is false, misleading, or incomplete.
Requires the Secretary to publish a summary statement of the scientific basis for approval of any new drug and how the final decision balanced the risk and benefits within 48 hours after approval of an application.
People & committees
Rep. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA-7] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E390-391)
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1165 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1165 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1165 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1165 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.