HR-10712-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA)
What it does
The bill would add emergency response providers and 911 public safety telecommunicators to the list of eligible institutions under an existing federal mental and behavioral health education and training grant program, so that grants may support field placement and recruitment of clinicians in those settings. It would also require the Health and Human Services Secretary to set up a 3-year pilot program awarding grants to state, local, county or regional public health or behavioral health agencies and to nonprofits experienced with first responders. Grant funds may be used for embedded licensed clinicians, peer-to-peer counseling programs, program oversight, or peer-supporter training. The bill would authorize $10 million per year for fiscal years 2027 through 2029, subject to appropriation, and would require a report to Congress after the pilot ends.
Who benefits
Firefighters, emergency medical personnel, law enforcement officers and 911 dispatchers who may gain access to confidential counseling and peer support. Under-resourced departments, which would get priority in awards and may lack their own behavioral health programs. Public health departments, behavioral health agencies and experienced nonprofits that could receive grant funding. Licensed clinicians and peer supporters who may gain placements or training opportunities. Families of responders who could see indirect benefits if outcomes improve.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers would bear up to $30 million in authorized spending over three years if Congress appropriates it. Other applicants to the existing mental and behavioral health training grant program may face more competition for a fixed pool of funds. Departments and agencies that are not selected, or that lack grant-writing capacity, may be left out given the limited pilot size. Applicant agencies would take on application and reporting work, and the pilot's short duration may leave funded programs without continued support.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that first responders face repeated exposure to traumatic events and that confidential, embedded counseling and peer-to-peer programs reach people who may avoid traditional care. They contend a modest $10 million per year, three-year pilot with a required report to Congress tests the approach before larger commitments, and that priority for under-resourced departments and equitable geographic distribution target the places with the least access.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that $10 million per year is small relative to the number of responders nationwide, so the pilot may reach few departments and add to federal spending without proven results. They contend that responder mental health is traditionally a state and local employer responsibility, that existing federal programs may already cover this need, and that adding eligible groups to an existing grant program may dilute funds for other behavioral health workforce goals.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) to fund optional grants. South Dakota v. Dole (1987) permits conditions on federal funds if they are clearly stated and related to the program's purpose, and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) limits only coercive conditions. Here, participation is voluntary, so the coercion concerns raised in NFIB are not implicated.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (HHS) gains discretion to design and award the grants, while Congress retains control through appropriations, the application and priority criteria, and the required report on the pilot's results.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously funded first responder wellness efforts, such as the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act (2017) and the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act (2022), which supported mental health programs for other emergency and health care workers.