PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 7, 2022
Save Americans from the Fentanyl Emergency Act of 2022 or the SAFE Act of 2022
This bill permanently places fentanyl-related substances as a class into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. A schedule I controlled substance is a drug, substance, or chemical that has a high potential for abuse; has no currently accepted medical value; and is subject to regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal penalties under the Controlled Substances Act.
It limits the application of mandatory minimum penalties for certain offenses involving fentanyl-related substances, establishes a process to deschedule or remove certain fentanyl-related substances that have a low potential for abuse, and allows a federal court to vacate or reduce the sentence for convictions of offenses involving a fentanyl-related substance that is descheduled or moved to a schedule other than schedule I or II.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill establishes a new, alternative registration process for schedule I research. It also makes other changes to registration requirements for conducting research with controlled substances, including
permitting a single registration for related research sites in certain circumstances,
waiving the requirement for a new inspection in certain situations, and
allowing a registered researcher to perform certain manufacturing activities with small quantities of a substance without obtaining a manufacturing registration.
Finally, the bill requires the Government Accountability Office to analyze the implementation and impact of permanently placing fentanyl-related substances into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
People & committees
Rep. Pappas, Chris [D-NH-1] · D–NH
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 Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
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: Jul 11, 2026. 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.6946 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.6946 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.6946 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.6946 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.