PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 18, 2014
Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2013 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act to require registrants to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances to obtain a criminal background check on, and perform drug testing on, each employee with access to facility areas where controlled substances are stored. Requires such background checks to be obtained when such an employee is hired and periodically thereafter, but not more frequently than every two years. Authorizes registration suspension or revocation and a $10,000 penalty for failing to comply with such requirements.
Requires the Attorney General, before revoking or suspending a registration under such Act, to: (1) provide the registrant notice of the grounds for doing so, and where such grounds consist of a legal violation, a specific citation to such law; (2) give the registrant an opportunity to submit a corrective action plan within a reasonable time period; and (3) determine whether, in light of the plan, revocation or suspension proceedings should be discontinued or deferred or additional changes need to be made in such plan.
Establishes the Combating Prescription Drug Abuse Working Group to: (1) report on federal initiatives to reduce prescription drug diversion and abuse, (2) identify gaps and opportunities to ensure the safe use of prescription drugs with the potential for diversion and abuse, (3) examine recommendations to transfer one or more controlled substances from schedule III to schedule II to evaluate the effectiveness of such a transfer in reducing diversion and abuse and any effect of such a transfer on access to prescription drugs for legitimate medical purposes, (4) make recommendations on specific ways to reduce the diversion and abuse of prescription drugs, and (5) report on its efforts to prevent or reduce prescription drug diversion and abuse to ensure that patients continue to have access to medications.
People & committees
Rep. Marino, Tom [R-PA-10] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.4069 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.4069 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.4069 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.4069 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.