Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
This bill bars any Federal funds to a State, local, Tribal, or private entity that operates or controls an injection center in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856 (the Controlled Substances Act “crack house” provision). It ties federal funding eligibility to compliance with that statute.
Public-health harm reduction benefits versus strict law-enforcement compliance
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive prohibition on making Federal funds available to entities that operate or control injection centers in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856.
This bill bars any Federal funds to a State, local, Tribal, or private entity that operates or controls an injection center in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856 (the Controlled Substances Act “crack house” provision).
It ties federal funding eligibility to compliance with that statute.
Narrow scope helps, but high controversy, weak compromise features, and Senate hurdles reduce lawmaking chances; litigation risk also lowers odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive prohibition on making Federal funds available to entities that operate or control injection centers in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856. The primary legal effect is explicit, but the bill provides minimal implementation, procedural, fiscal, or oversight detail.
Public-health harm reduction benefits versus strict law-enforcement compliance
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Public-health harm reduction benefits versus strict law-enforcement compliance
Likely to oppose the bill.
They would argue it blocks local harm-reduction approaches that reduce overdoses and spread of infectious disease.
They view the measure as federal interference with proven public-health interventions.
Mixed reaction: appreciates clarifying federal funding rules and upholding federal law, but worries about negative public-health consequences.
They would seek compromise measures to protect public safety while minimizing harms to at-risk populations.
Generally supportive.
They would argue the bill enforces existing federal law and prevents taxpayer dollars from subsidizing activities that facilitate illegal drug use.
They see it as a pro-law-enforcement, pro-taxpayer measure.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow scope helps, but high controversy, weak compromise features, and Senate hurdles reduce lawmaking chances; litigation risk also lowers odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Public-health harm reduction benefits versus strict law-enforcement compliance
Narrow scope helps, but high controversy, weak compromise features, and Senate hurdles reduce lawmaking chances; litigation risk also lower…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive prohibition on making Federal funds available to entities that operate or control injection centers in violation of 21 U.S.C. 856. Th…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.