PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S65-66)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 4, 2007
Citizen Petition Fairness and Accuracy Act of 2007 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require that any citizen petition or request for stay of action related to an abbreviated new drug application include a statement that to the petitioner's best knowledge and belief, the petition: (1) includes all information and views on which the petitioner relies; (2) is well grounded in fact and is warranted by law; (3) is not submitted for an improper purpose; and (4) does not contain a materially false, misleading, or fraudulent statement. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to investigate any petition that does not comply with such requirements.
Allows the Secretary to impose penalties for knowingly and willfully submitting a petition for an improper purpose or that contains a materially false, misleading or fraudulent statement. Provides that such penalties may include: (1) imposition of a civil penalty; (2) suspension or revocation of the petitioner's authority to submit such a petition; and (3) dismissal of the petition. Requires the Secretary to refer such a violative petition to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for further action. Sets forth the factors that the Secretary shall consider in taking an enforcement action or determining the penalty.
Permits any person aggrieved by a petition that may contain violations to submit a request, with a certification of good faith, for the Secretary to initiate an investigation. Subjects such person to civil penalties for knowing and intentional submission of a violative request.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to take final agency action on such a petition within six months. Prohibits the Secretary from extending the review period for any reason.
People & committees
Sen. Kohl, Herb [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S65-66)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S64-65)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.25 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 S.25 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 S.25 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 S.25 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.