PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 8, 1997
Effective Substance Abuse Treatment Act - Amends the Public Health Service Act to declare that the amendments made by this Act apply to each program that makes awards of Federal financial assistance to prevent or treat substance abuse. Allows, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization to be an award recipient, make subawards, provide services through vouchers, or accept vouchers for providing services. Makes religious organizations eligible on the same basis as any other nonprofit private organization. Prohibits Federal or State: (1) discrimination against an organization on the basis that the organization has a religious character; and (2) requirements that a religious organization, in order to be a program participant, remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other symbols. Requires a religious organization to arrange for services through an alternative entity if an individual objects to the religious organization. Allows a religious organization to require a beneficiary who has elected to receive services from the organization to actively participate in religious practice, worship, and instruction. Prohibits using funds for sectarian worship or instruction, unless the beneficiary may choose where the assistance is redeemed or allocated. Declares that assistance to or on behalf of a beneficiary is aid to the beneficiary and not to the organization. Requires, if a State law or constitution would prevent the expenditure of State or local funds by religious organizations, that the Federal funds shall be segregated from State or other public funds. Requires, for personnel working in religious organization drug treatment programs, giving credit for religious education and training equivalent to credit given for secular course work. Mandates waiver of educational requirements if the religious organization has a record of successful drug treatment and the State or local government fails to demonstrate empirically that the educational qualifications are necessary.
People & committees
Sen. Abraham, Spencer [R-MI] · R–MI
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 Labor and Human Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12132-12133)
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 21, 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.1466 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.1466 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.1466 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.1466 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.