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 · Apr 15, 2015
FDA Accountability for Public Safety Act
This bill requires the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to ensure that an advisory committee of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates each new drug application for an opioid (a drug with effects similar to opium, such as morphine) and issues a recommendation regarding approval of the drug. If the decision to approve the drug is inconsistent with the committee's recommendation, the Commissioner must make the final decision on approval.
If the committee recommends a drug not be approved but the Commissioner decides to approve the drug, the Commissioner must: (1) submit a report to Congress that includes the evidence regarding patient safety that supports the Commissioner's decision and a disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest of FDA officials involved in the decision to approve the drug; and (2) testify before Congress regarding the decision, upon request. Such a drug cannot be sold until the Commissioner has submitted the required report.
People & committees
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV] · D–WV
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.
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 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 S.954 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.954 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.954 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.954 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.