Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill offers loan repayment help to mental health professionals to reduce workforce shortages.
The problem
The United States faces a shortage of mental health professionals like therapists, counselors, and psychiatrists. Student loan debt may discourage people from entering these fields.
The proposal
The bill would establish a loan repayment program for mental health professionals. It would help pay back student loans for those working in underserved areas or high-need settings.
The impact
Mental health professionals would receive financial help. Patients in underserved communities may gain better access to mental health care. Taxpayers would fund the program.
Loan repayment makes mental health careers more attractive financially. This could increase the number of therapists, counselors, and psychiatrists willing to work in areas that need them most.
Mental health care is scarce in rural and low-income areas. This program could bring more professionals to these communities, improving access to treatment.
Mental health professionals often carry heavy student debt. Loan repayment assistance eases their financial burden and improves their quality of life.
Mental illness affects millions of Americans. More mental health professionals could help treat depression, anxiety, and other conditions affecting public health.
The program costs taxpayer money. Critics may argue these funds could be used elsewhere or that loan repayment is too expensive.
The program likely has eligibility requirements and limits. Not all mental health professionals might qualify for assistance.
Loan repayment addresses symptoms but not root causes like low mental health professional salaries. It may not create lasting workforce growth.
If funding is limited, deciding who receives help might be controversial. Some professionals could feel the selection process is unfair.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.