Mental Health Professionals Workforce Shortage Loan Repayment Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]
ID: S001226
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
December 11, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another bill, another chance for our esteemed lawmakers to pretend they care about the well-being of Americans while lining their own pockets and those of their donors.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Mental Health Professionals Workforce Shortage Loan Repayment Act of 2025 aims to alleviate the shortage of mental health professionals by offering loan repayment programs to individuals who agree to work in underserved areas. Or, in simpler terms, it's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Public Health Service Act to establish a loan repayment program for mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and other related fields. It sets aside $25 million annually from 2026 to 2035 to fund this program, which will provide up to $250,000 in loan repayments over six years.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
* Mental health professionals (the supposed beneficiaries of this bill) * The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which will administer the program * Educational institutions that train mental health professionals * Lobbying groups, such as the American Psychological Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness
**Potential Impact & Implications:** Let's get real here. This bill is a drop in the ocean compared to the actual needs of the mental health system. It's a token gesture designed to make lawmakers look good while doing little to address the root causes of the shortage.
The program will likely benefit a select few, mostly those already working in the field or those with connections to influential organizations. Meanwhile, the underlying issues – inadequate funding, lack of resources, and poor working conditions – will remain unaddressed.
Now, let's follow the money trail:
* The bill's sponsors, Ms. Salinas, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Ciscomani, and Ms. Budzinski, have received significant campaign contributions from healthcare and education PACs. * The American Psychological Association has donated to several of these lawmakers' campaigns. * The National Alliance on Mental Illness has also contributed to their campaigns.
It's a classic case of "follow the money" – or in this case, follow the loan repayments. This bill is less about solving the mental health workforce shortage and more about rewarding loyal donors and maintaining the status quo.
In conclusion, this bill is a symptom of a larger disease: a system that prioritizes special interests over actual solutions. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to make lawmakers look good while doing little to address the real issues.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]
ID: F000466
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Ciscomani, Juan [R-AZ-6]
ID: C001133
Top Contributors
10
Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13]
ID: B001315
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 35 nodes and 39 connections
Total contributions: $109,900
Top Donors - Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),
Introduction
— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), — 342 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise use litigation and other efforts to block school choice and advocate for additional taxpayer spending in education. They also lobbied to keep schools closed during the pandemic. All of these positions run contrary to robust research evidence showing positive outcomes for students from education choice policies; there is no conclusive evidence that more taxpayer spending on schools improves student outcomes; and evidence finds that keeping schools closed to in-person learning resulted in negative emotional and academic outcomes for students. Furthermore, the union promotes radical racial and gender ideologies in schools that parents oppose according to nationally representative surveys. l Congress should rescind the National Education Association’s congressional charter and remove the false impression that federal taxpayers support the political activities of this special interest group. This move would not be unprecedented, as Congress has rescinded the federal charters of other organizations over the past century. The NEA is a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers. l Members should conduct hearings to determine how much federal taxpayer money the NEA has used for radical causes favoring a single political party. Parental Rights in Education and Safeguarding Students l Federal officials should protect educators and students in jurisdictions under federal control from racial discrimination by reinforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibiting compelled speech. Specifically, no teacher or student in Washington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, or Department of Defense schools should be compelled to believe, profess, or adhere to any idea, but especially ideas that violate state and federal civil rights laws. By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its found- ers state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate—necessary, even—making the theory more than merely an analyti- cal tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school
Introduction
— 338 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise a new IDR plan. The new plan should have an income exemption equal to the poverty line and require payments of 10 percent of income above the exemption. If new legislation is possible, there should be no loan forgiveness, but if not, existing law would require forgiving any remaining balance after 25 years. President Biden has proposed a new income-driven repayment program that would be extremely generous to borrowers, requiring only nominal payments from most students. It would turn every policy lever to the most generous setting on record (e.g., lowering the percentage of income owed from 10 percent to 25 per- cent under existing plans to 5 percent, lowering the number of years of payment required from 20 or 25 years to 10 years, and increasing income exemption from 150 percent to 225 percent of the poverty line). The median borrower who earns an associate degree would owe only $15 a month, regardless of how much he or she had borrowed. The median bachelor’s degree borrower would owe only $68 a month. This plan essentially converts these student loans into delayed grant programs. OTHER STRUCTURAL REFORMS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REQUIRES Reform Federal Education Data Collection The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and other data col- lections currently release data by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English language proficiency, disability, and sex. However, one of the most important—if not the most important—factor influencing student educational achievement and attainment is family structure. As education scholar Ian Rowe has noted, NAEP already collects data on students’ family structure; it just does not make those data publicly available. l The Department of Education (or whichever agency collects such data long term) should make student data available by family structure to the public, including as part of its Data Explorer tool. l As discussed above, data collection efforts should be consolidated under the Census Bureau. l Data collection efforts in higher education should also be improved by housing higher education data at the Department of Labor. This would provide more transparency in evaluating postsecondary education and workforce training program outcomes; contextualize those results based on trends observed more generally; enable the adjusting of real
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.