HR-9513-119
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Jesús García (D-IL)
What it does
The bill would require the Secretary of Education, working with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to run a competitive grant program for local school agencies and their partners. Grants would support starting or expanding school-based health services in full-service community schools. Funds could pay for school nurses, mental health staff, partnerships with federally qualified health centers, nutrition help, housing referrals, legal services, and services for English learners and immigrant families. The bill sets no dollar amount, requires annual grantee reports and reports to Congress every three years, and states that it does not alter FERPA or HIPAA privacy protections.
Who benefits
Students in full-service community schools, especially low-income students, English learners, and children of immigrant families, who could gain on-site primary care and mental health services. School districts and consortia that win grants. Federally qualified health centers and community organizations that may gain partnership funding. School nurses, counselors, and social workers who may be hired. Families in medically underserved areas who may get easier access to care.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers would bear the cost, which the bill does not specify and which would depend on future appropriations. Districts that do not win grants or lack capacity to apply may be at a competitive disadvantage. Grantees would take on reporting and data-disaggregation work. Schools might divert staff time and attention from instruction. Critics of the funding priorities may object to federal money supporting legal services and services targeted to immigrant families. Existing non-school clinics might see some patients shift to school sites.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that schools reach children where they already are, so on-site health and mental health care removes barriers like transportation and cost. They contend that tying grants to federally qualified health centers, shortage-area priority, and required outcome reporting on health, attendance, and academics targets money to unmet needs and builds an evidence base for what works.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that health care is not a core educational function and that adding it may stretch school budgets and staff beyond their mission. They contend the bill leaves the funding level open-ended, creates a new federal program alongside Medicaid and existing health center funding, and funds services such as legal assistance and immigrant-focused programming that some taxpayers may not want federally supported.
Constitutional context
Congress creates this grant program under its Taxing and Spending Clause power (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), and participation is voluntary, so the coercion concern in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) is unlikely to arise. The bill's rule of construction preserves FERPA and HIPAA privacy protections.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Education and HHS) gains discretion to run the competitive program and set application terms, while Congress checks it through appropriations, the required memorandum of understanding, and the triennial reports to Congress.
Historical precedent
The Full-Service Community Schools program under Title IV, Part F of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which this bill's definition cites, already funds similar integrated student-support models.