HR-1906-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development.
Sponsored by Nikki Budzinski (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 to add behavioral and mental health treatment as a priority category when the USDA selects recipients for rural community facility loans and grants. It would also extend the existing substance use disorder set-aside under those programs from 2025 to 2029, and slightly reduce the substance use disorder funding set-aside percentage from 20% to 17% to make room for the new behavioral and mental health priority. Additionally, it would direct the USDA to prioritize applicants for Rural Health and Safety Education grants who plan to use funds for behavioral and mental health education and treatment.
Who benefits
Rural residents who need behavioral or mental health services and currently lack local access to them. Community health clinics, nonprofits, and local governments in rural areas that would gain priority access to USDA loans and grants to build or expand mental health facilities. Mental health professionals who would find new employment opportunities in rural areas. Rural residents struggling with substance use disorders, whose existing program protections are extended through 2029. Indirectly, rural employers and schools that may see reduced absenteeism and improved community health outcomes.
Who is hurt
Applicants for USDA community facility loans and grants who do not focus on behavioral or mental health — such as those seeking funding for other essential community facilities (fire stations, libraries, hospitals focused on physical health) — who would face increased competition and lower priority in grant selection. Organizations currently benefiting from the 20% substance use disorder set-aside, which would be reduced to 17%, potentially receiving a smaller share of available funds. Urban and suburban mental health providers who do not qualify for rural development programs and may face indirect competitive disadvantages.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that rural Americans face a severe mental health care shortage — rural counties are nearly four times more likely than urban counties to have no mental health providers at all, according to HRSA data. They contend that directing existing USDA rural development funding toward behavioral and mental health facilities is a targeted, cost-effective way to address this gap without creating a new federal program, and that extending the substance use disorder set-aside through 2029 preserves hard-won protections for communities hit hardest by the opioid crisis.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that adding a new priority category for behavioral and mental health effectively dilutes the existing substance use disorder set-aside — evidenced by the bill's reduction of that set-aside from 20% to 17% — potentially leaving communities dependent on those funds with fewer resources. They contend that USDA rural development programs were designed for physical infrastructure, and that redirecting them toward health services may not be the most efficient mechanism compared to targeted health agency programs through HHS or SAMHSA, which have greater clinical expertise and oversight capacity.