PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 1, 2010
Universal Access to Methamphetamine Treatment Act of 2010 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make grants to: (1) increase the availability of treatment for methamphetamine abuse; (2) provide vouchers to individuals in underserved populations for authorized services related to such treatment; and (3) establish programs to provide for and coordinate the provision of wrap-around services, such as medical services, job training services, and housing assistance, to methamphetamine-affected individuals.
Revises the grant program to provide residential substance abuse treatment to pregnant and postpartum women to: (1) make caregiver parents eligible for such program; (2) make Indian tribes and tribal organizations eligible for grants; and (3) set forth the priority for allocation of grants.
Requires the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to conduct research on the effectiveness of the use of agonist and antagonist drugs to reduce the problems associated with stimulant abuse, including methamphetamine abuse.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to seek to enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine to complete a literature review on the effectiveness of agonist and antagonist drugs for the treatment of stimulant abuse, including methamphetamine abuse.
Requires the Comptroller General to study: (1) the impact of the programs authorized by this Act on the effectiveness and availability of treatment for methamphetamine abuse; (2) how the level of federal funding available for such treatment compares to the amount necessary to provide adequate treatment; and (3) the impact of effective treatment of methamphetamine abuse on cost savings due to the reduced need for criminal justice and other services.
People & committees
Rep. Carnahan, Russ [D-MO-3] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
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 H.R.5678 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.5678 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.5678 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.5678 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.