PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 11, 2006
Emergency Preparedness and Response Security, Accountability, and Flexibility Enhancement Act or the SAFE ACT - Amends the Public Health Service Act to revise provisions relating to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies preparedness grants, including to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop measurable critical benchmarks and performance standards.
Authorizes the Secretary to develop a real-time surveillance program for collecting and reporting information on notifiable diseases and conditions (infectious diseases, environmental exposures or poisons, and other conditions, the real-time surveillance and control of which in the United States constitute a critical public health need). Requires the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish a national electronic surveillance program for such diseases. Provides for a health alert in the case of a public health emergency or other circumstance requiring active surveillance.
Requires the Secretary to award grants to enable states to conduct surveillance and report with respect to notifiable diseases. Makes ineligible for certain funding states or health care providers that do not report notifiable diseases.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Allows grantees to use grant funds to develop benchmarks for meeting critical capacity for food or water borne disease detection and response.
Requires the Director to provide for the evaluation of the progress made by state and local governments in meeting the benchmarks established under this Act.
Requires the Secretary to establish procedures for the inspection, screening, and quarantine of live animals entering the United States for commercial purposes.
Requires the federal agency partners of the National Disaster Medical System to conduct a review of the National Disaster Medical System infrastructure.
People & committees
Sen. Gregg, Judd [R-NH] · R–NH
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4476)
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 15, 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.2792 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.2792 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.2792 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.2792 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.