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 2, 2005
Comprehensive Methamphetamine Response Act - Authorizes the Director of National Drug Control Policy to designate a State, or any portion of a State, as a high intensity methamphetamine abuse and trafficking area (HIMATA) and provide funding for such areas after: (1) receiving a Governor's petition for such designation; and (2) making a determination for the area on the basis of the methamphetamine epidemic severity index developed under this Act. Requires the Director to give priority consideration to areas that are already so designated if methamphetamine is a primary reason for that designation.
Requires the Director to develop a methamphetamine epidemic severity index to be used in making HIMATA determinations based on specified factors, including per capita rates of methamphetamine possession or production, lab seizures, and addiction in an area.
Authorizes the Director to provide funding to a State to implement a HIMATA after receipt of a comprehensive methamphetamine response plan (CMRP). Requires the Director to determine funding levels based on the population and the severity index of the area, with an exception.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Director to require the State in which the HIMATA is located to develop a CMRP that: (1) describes the manner in which the State plans to use funding provided to address any existing inadequacies in enforcement, treatment, prevention, and precursor controls; and (2) in the case of a HIMATA that overlaps with a high intensity drug trafficking area, addresses how the two programs will coordinate.
People & committees
Rep. Hooley, Darlene [D-OR-5] · D–OR
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.
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.
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 H.R.1055 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.1055 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.1055 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.1055 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.