S. 1361 (119th)Bill Overview

Every State Counts for Veterans Mental Health Act

Armed Forces and National Security|Armed Forces and National Security
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
Apr 9, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

This bill amends the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act of 2019 to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prioritize consideration and give a scoring preference to eligible applicants for VA suicide prevention grants located in States that have not yet received such a grant, until at least one grant is awarded in that State.

Passage70/100

Small, technical, non-controversial change benefiting veterans' services; historically such fixes clear committees and receive broad agreement.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear, narrowly focused administrative requirement for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prioritize grant consideration for entities in States that have not yet received a grant and to give a scoring preference to applicants in such States until one award is made. It directly amends a specific statutory provision but leaves multiple practical details unspecified.

Contention32/100

Equity versus merit: geographic fairness tradeoff with scoring standards

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
States · VeteransStates
Likely helped
  • StatesIncreases likelihood that every State receives at least one VA suicide prevention grant, improving geographic equity.
  • VeteransExpands veteran access to suicide prevention services in States previously without grant-funded programs.
  • Targeted stakeholdersEncourages applications from rural and underserved areas that otherwise might not apply.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersGeographic preference could override merit, allocating funds to lower-scoring applicants in some cases.
  • Targeted stakeholdersHigh-need areas that previously received grants may receive fewer follow-on awards.
  • StatesAdds administrative steps for VA to track state application histories and apply scoring preferences.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Equity versus merit: geographic fairness tradeoff with scoring standards
Progressive85%

Likely views the bill positively as a targeted equity measure to expand access to veterans' mental health services in underserved States.

May appreciate the focus on geographic fairness and suicide prevention, while noting that implementation details matter for effectiveness.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Generally supportive of improving national coverage for veterans' suicide-prevention services, but cautious about tradeoffs between geographic fairness and grant quality.

Will want clear implementation rules, oversight, and evidence that the scoring preference improves outcomes.

Leans supportive
Conservative55%

Mixed-to-skeptical: supportive of improving services to veterans, especially in underserved rural States, but wary of federal interference in merit-based grant selection.

Concerned about efficiency, potential politicization, and whether the federal role is expanding.

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

Small, technical, non-controversial change benefiting veterans' services; historically such fixes clear committees and receive broad agreement.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No congressional cost estimate or CBO score provided in text
  • How scoring preference will be quantified administratively
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

Equity versus merit: geographic fairness tradeoff with scoring standards

Small, technical, non-controversial change benefiting veterans' services; historically such fixes clear committees and receive broad agreem…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a clear, narrowly focused administrative requirement for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prioritize grant consideration for entities in States that have not…

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