Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Reauthorizes federal programs for youth prevention and recovery from substance abuse.
The problem
Youth substance abuse and addiction require sustained federal funding and programs. Current authorization for prevention and recovery initiatives may be expiring or need renewal.
The proposal
Extends funding and authority for federal youth prevention and recovery programs, likely including treatment services, education, and support systems for young people struggling with substance abuse.
The impact
Youth in recovery programs, families, healthcare providers, and communities benefit from continued federal support for prevention and addiction treatment services.
Reauthorization ensures continued funding for treatment and recovery programs that help young people overcome substance abuse. This maintains access to critical health services that might otherwise be discontinued.
Sustained funding supports school and community-based prevention programs that teach youth about substance abuse risks. Early education can reduce rates of addiction among young populations.
Reauthorization provides predictable funding for organizations and states implementing youth programs. This stability allows long-term planning and reduces disruptions to services.
Youth overdose deaths and addiction rates remain serious concerns. Reauthorization shows federal commitment to addressing substance abuse among young Americans.
Reauthorization requires federal funding that adds to government spending. Critics may argue resources should be redirected to other priorities or that programs should be more cost-efficient.
Without detailed bill language, unclear whether existing programs achieve desired outcomes. Some may question whether current approaches effectively reduce youth substance abuse rates.
No official summary provided makes it difficult to assess specific program changes, funding amounts, or targeted populations. Lack of transparency prevents full evaluation of the bill's scope.
Questions may arise about whether substance abuse prevention should be primarily a state or federal responsibility. Some argue states are better positioned to address local needs.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.