PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Oct 20, 2021
State Opioid Response Grant Authorization Act of 2021
This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 and otherwise changes the State Opioid Response Grant program. This program, which is managed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, provides funding for states, territories, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations to address the opioid crisis.
Specific changes to the program include (1) expanding its scope to also address stimulant use and misuse, (2) establishing a funding methodology and minimum funding allocations, and (3) allowing the use of grant funds for recovery support services.
The bill also requires the Government Accountability Office to report on issues concerning the funding and other aspects of the program.
People & committees
Rep. Trone, David J. [D-MD-6] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 380 - 46 (Roll no. 320). (text: CR 10/19/2021 H5647-5648)
House roll call 320 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 380 - 46 (Roll no. 320).(text: CR 10/19/2021 H5647-5648)
House roll call 320 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5699-5700)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2379.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5647-5650)
Mr. Pallone moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 109.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 117-149.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 117-149.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: May 28, 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.2379 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.2379 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.2379 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.2379 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.