H.R. 3624 (119th)Bill Overview

Improving Mental Health Access for Students Act

Education|Education
Cosponsors
Support
Lean Democratic
Introduced
May 29, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill amends the Higher Education Act to require U.S. institutions that issue student identification cards to include phone contact information for the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, Crisis Text Line, and the institution's campus mental health center or program. Institutions that do not issue ID cards must instead publish the same suicide-prevention contact information on their websites.

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize mental-health access and prevention benefits

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive obligation and specifies concrete, limited mechanisms to effect that obligation, but it omits several implementation and oversight details common to statutory compliance provisions.

This bill amends the Higher Education Act to require U.S. institutions that issue student identification cards to include phone contact information for the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, Crisis Text Line, and the institution's campus mental health center or program.

Institutions that do not issue ID cards must instead publish the same suicide-prevention contact information on their websites.

The Secretary may substitute similar entities if 988 or Crisis Text Line cease to exist.

Passage70/100

Low-cost, narrowly focused public-health measure with built-in flexibility increases prospects, though many standalone bills still stall without broader vehicle or bipartisan champions.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive obligation and specifies concrete, limited mechanisms to effect that obligation, but it omits several implementation and oversight details common to statutory compliance provisions.

Contention55/100

Progressives emphasize mental-health access and prevention benefits

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
StudentsCities

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • StudentsIncreases student access to immediate crisis hotlines and campus mental health contact information.
  • Potential benefitStandardizes easily visible emergency contacts across participating higher education institutions.
  • Potential benefitMay encourage earlier help-seeking and reduce acute mental health emergencies on campus.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenAdds administrative and printing costs for institutions updating identification cards.
  • Potential burdenCreates a new compliance obligation that may require monitoring and reporting resources.
  • CitiesMay produce a false sense of sufficiency without increasing on-campus clinical capacity.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize mental-health access and prevention benefits
Progressive90%

Overall supportive.

The requirement increases visible access to crisis resources and destigmatizes help-seeking on campuses.

The policy aligns with priorities to expand mental health access and prevent student suicide, though outcomes depend on broader service capacity.

Leans supportive
Centrist75%

Generally favorable as a targeted, low-cost step to improve student safety.

Values simplicity and pragmatic implementation but will want clarity on compliance, administrative burden, and evidence of effectiveness.

Leans supportive
Conservative40%

Cautious or somewhat skeptical.

While sympathetic to preventing suicide, this persona worries about a new federal mandate on institutions, administrative burdens, and preferring state or institutional discretion over federal prescription.

Split reaction
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood70/100

Low-cost, narrowly focused public-health measure with built-in flexibility increases prospects, though many standalone bills still stall without broader vehicle or bipartisan champions.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Enforcement mechanism and penalties for noncompliance are unspecified
  • Whether this applies only to institutions subject to HEA (postsecondary) or broader schools
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize mental-health access and prevention benefits

Low-cost, narrowly focused public-health measure with built-in flexibility increases prospects, though many standalone bills still stall wi…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive obligation and specifies concrete, limited mechanisms to effect that obligation, but it omits several implementation and oversight…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis