H.R. 9866 (119th)Bill Overview

C.A.R.E. for Mental Health Professionals Act

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
Jul 22, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Creates the Mental Health Licensure Portability Program at HRSA to award grants to interstate compact commissions or State licensure boards. Grants will incentivize counselors to practice in States participating in occupational licensure interstate compacts and support development, operation, or maintenance of interstate compact commissions.

Why people may split

Adequacy of funding: liberals want more; conservatives note cost concerns

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill authorizes and briefly defines a new HRSA grant program and provides a four‑year funding authorization.

Creates the Mental Health Licensure Portability Program at HRSA to award grants to interstate compact commissions or State licensure boards.

Grants will incentivize counselors to practice in States participating in occupational licensure interstate compacts and support development, operation, or maintenance of interstate compact commissions.

The bill requires program establishment within 90 days and authorizes $4 million annually for FY2026–2029.

Passage45/100

Modest, noncontroversial program with limited cost improves chances, but still requires committee approval, floor time, and appropriations.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill authorizes and briefly defines a new HRSA grant program and provides a four‑year funding authorization. It establishes core terms and assigns administrative responsibility but omits detailed grant mechanisms, eligibility prioritization beyond a basic definition, accountability measures, and safeguards.

Contention55/100

Adequacy of funding: liberals want more; conservatives note cost concerns

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
StatesFederal agencies · Consumers

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

Likely helped
  • StatesIncrease access to mental health services in states that join interstate compacts.
  • StatesFacilitate cross‑state practice and telehealth by recognizing out‑of‑state counseling licenses.
  • Potential benefitCreate administrative and compliance jobs to establish and run compact commissions.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesShift regulatory authority toward interstate commissions, raising federal versus state governance concerns.
  • ConsumersRisk inconsistent consumer protections if States maintain differing standards within compacts.
  • Potential burdenAuthorized $4 million per year may be too small to substantially increase provider supply.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Adequacy of funding: liberals want more; conservatives note cost concerns
Progressive90%

Likely broadly supportive because the bill aims to expand access to credentialed mental health professionals and reduce workforce barriers.

Sees interstate compacts as a practical way to increase care availability, including telehealth, for underserved communities.

May press for stronger funding, equity measures, and consumer protections.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Generally favorable with caveats: sees practical value in lowering licensure barriers to expand supply but notes limited funding and few implementation details.

Wants clear accountability, performance metrics, and respect for state regulatory authority.

Likely to support if oversight and measurable outcomes are added.

Leans supportive
Conservative45%

Mixed to somewhat skeptical: the bill advances licensure portability and workforce flexibility — positives — but creates a new federal grant program that may steer state policy.

Concerns include federal fiscal involvement, potential erosion of state licensure standards, and administrative expansion.

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 likelihood45/100

Modest, noncontroversial program with limited cost improves chances, but still requires committee approval, floor time, and appropriations.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Positions of state licensing boards and professional associations
  • Committee prioritization and legislative calendar constraints
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

Adequacy of funding: liberals want more; conservatives note cost concerns

Modest, noncontroversial program with limited cost improves chances, but still requires committee approval, floor time, and appropriations.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill authorizes and briefly defines a new HRSA grant program and provides a four‑year funding authorization. It establishes core terms and assigns administrative responsib…

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