Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends Section 520E–2 of the Public Health Service Act to expand the category of entities eligible for mental health and substance use disorder services grants. Wherever the statute currently refers to "institutions of higher education," the bill substitutes the term "covered institution." It then defines "covered institution" to include both institutions of higher education (per the Higher Education Act) and area career and technical education (CTE) schools (as defined in the Carl D.
Scope of federal role: liberals emphasize expanding access and equity; conservatives worry about federal overreach and prefer state/local control.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused statutory amendment that clearly defines its objective and specifies the textual changes needed to expand grant eligibility to area career and technical education schools.
This bill amends Section 520E–2 of the Public Health Service Act to expand the category of entities eligible for mental health and substance use disorder services grants.
Wherever the statute currently refers to "institutions of higher education," the bill substitutes the term "covered institution." It then defines "covered institution" to include both institutions of higher education (per the Higher Education Act) and area career and technical education (CTE) schools (as defined in the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006).
Based solely on content, this is a narrowly targeted, administratively simple amendment to expand grant eligibility to CTE schools for mental health and substance use services — a low‑salience, low‑ideology change that usually attracts bipartisan support. The main barriers are procedural (getting floor time, having appropriations aligned) rather than policy opposition.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused statutory amendment that clearly defines its objective and specifies the textual changes needed to expand grant eligibility to area career and technical education schools. The amendment is specific and integrates directly into the named statutory provision.
Scope of federal role: liberals emphasize expanding access and equity; conservatives worry about federal overreach and prefer state/local control.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope of federal role: liberals emphasize expanding access and equity; conservatives worry about federal overreach and prefer state/local control.
A liberal/left-leaning observer would likely view this bill positively as an equity and access measure that extends mental health and substance use disorder resources to a population (CTE students) that may have been underserved.
They would emphasize the importance of making prevention and treatment services available where students study and train, and see the change as a modest but useful expansion of public-health supports.
They would also look for assurances that funding levels, culturally competent services, and accessibility for marginalized students accompany the eligibility change.
A centrist/moderate would likely regard this bill as a narrow, pragmatic expansion that fills an apparent gap without dramatically changing federal policy.
They would appreciate the bill’s straightforward technical fix and bipartisan potential but want clarity on fiscal impact, implementation details, and measures to ensure efficient use of funds.
Overall, they would be inclined to support it if accompanied by modest fiscal discipline and reporting requirements.
A mainstream conservative view would approach the bill with cautious pragmatism.
Because the change is narrow—extending eligibility to area CTE schools rather than creating a large new entitlement—many conservatives may find it acceptable, particularly if it is seen as supporting workforce training populations.
However, some conservatives will be concerned about expanding the federal government’s role, potential new spending without offsets, and preserving local control over school services.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Based solely on content, this is a narrowly targeted, administratively simple amendment to expand grant eligibility to CTE schools for mental health and substance use services — a low‑salience, low‑ideology change that usually attracts bipartisan support. The main barriers are procedural (getting floor time, having appropriations aligned) rather than policy opposition.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope of federal role: liberals emphasize expanding access and equity; conservatives worry about federal overreach and prefer state/local c…
Based solely on content, this is a narrowly targeted, administratively simple amendment to expand grant eligibility to CTE schools for ment…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused statutory amendment that clearly defines its objective and specifies the textual changes needed to expand grant eligibility to area career and t…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.