Youth Mental Health Research Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
ID: K000367
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đ Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đ 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 opportunity for our esteemed lawmakers to pretend they care about something other than their own reelections and the interests of their corporate donors.
**Main Purpose & Objectives**
The Youth Mental Health Research Act (S 1266) claims to establish a research initiative within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to "improve youth mental health." How noble. The real purpose, of course, is to funnel more taxpayer dollars into the pockets of researchers and pharmaceutical companies while giving politicians a chance to grandstand about their concern for the well-being of America's youth.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**
The bill creates a new initiative within the NIH, led by the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, to coordinate research on youth mental health. It authorizes $100 million in annual appropriations from 2025 to 2030. Because what could possibly go wrong with throwing more money at a problem without addressing its root causes?
The bill also amends the Public Health Service Act to include this new initiative, because who needs actual policy changes when you can just add another layer of bureaucracy?
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**
* Researchers and academics: They'll be thrilled to receive more funding for their pet projects. * Pharmaceutical companies: They'll be salivating at the prospect of developing new treatments and medications to "help" America's youth, all while lining their pockets with profits. * Politicians: They'll get to tout this bill as proof of their commitment to mental health, even if it doesn't actually address the systemic issues driving poor mental health outcomes.
**Potential Impact & Implications**
This bill is a classic case of "throwing money at a problem and hoping it goes away." It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The real drivers of poor youth mental health â poverty, lack of access to education and healthcare, social media addiction, etc. â will remain unaddressed.
Meanwhile, the NIH will get to pad its budget with more taxpayer dollars, and researchers will get to publish papers that might (but probably won't) lead to actual improvements in youth mental health.
In short, this bill is a cynical exercise in political theater designed to make politicians look good while doing nothing meaningful to address the underlying issues. But hey, at least they're trying... to keep their jobs and appease their corporate donors.
Related Topics
đ° Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Congress 119 ⢠2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 16 nodes and 25 connections
Total contributions: $118,964
Top Donors - Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Showing top 15 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
â 462 â Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise In May 2022, documents obtained pursuant to a FOIA request revealed that NIH Director Francis Collins, NAIAD Director Anthony Fauci, and Fauciâs Deputy Director, Clifford Lane, all received royalties from pharmaceutical companies between 2009 and 2014.22 Nonprofit watchdog Open the Books estimates that from 2010 to 2020, third parties paid more than $350 million in royalties to NIH and its scientists, who are credited as coinventors. Most problematically, in the years when they received payments, Collins, Fauci, and Lane were NIH administrators, not researchers, with no plausible claim to be scientific co-discoverers. Most of the worldâs other advanced science countries have stricter prohibitions on such conflicts, which helps to explain why the most significant studies on COVID treatments, on natural immunity, and on vaccine efficacy have come mostly from outside the U.S. Funding for scientific research should not be controlled by a small group of highly paid and unaccountable insiders at the NIH, many of whom stay in power for decades. The NIH monopoly on directing research should be broken. Term limits should be imposed on top career leaders at the NIH, and Congress should consider block granting NIHâs grants budget to states to fund their own scientific research. Nothing in this system would prevent several states from partnering to co-fund large research projects that require greater resources or impact larger regions. Likewise, the establishment of funding for scientific research at the state level does not preclude more modest federal funding through the National Insti- tutes of Health: The two models are not mutually exclusive. The CDC and NIH Foundations, whose boards are populated with pharma- ceutical company executives, need to be decommissioned. Private donations to these foundationsâa majority of them from pharmaceutical companiesâshould not be permitted to influence government decisions about research funding or public health policy. Woke Policies. Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a cer- tain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished. NIH has been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science. Instead, it should fund studies into the short-term and long-term negative effects of cross- sex interventions, including âaffirmation,â puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries, and the likelihood of desistence if young people are given counseling that does not include medical or social interventions. CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS) With the goal of being a societal safety net, Medicare and Medicaid touch more American lives than does any other federal program. While they help many, they â 463 â Department of Health and Human Services operate as runaway entitlements that stifle medical innovation, encourage fraud, and impede cost containment, in addition to which their fiscal future is in peril. Both programs should be managed so that the individuals enrolled are empow- ered to make decisions for themselves and have quality options with affordable prices driven by competition and innovation. Providers who participate should retain (or have restored) the freedom to practice medicine and take care of their patients according to their patientsâ unique needs. Medicare. Medicare should be reformed according to four goals and principles: l Increase Medicare beneficiariesâ control of their health care. Patients are best positioned to determine the value of health care services, working with their health care providers. They also benefit from increased choice of doctors, hospitals, and insurance plans. Access to reliable information with respect to physicians, hospitals, and insurers is therefore essential. l Reduce regulatory burdens on doctors. Doctors must be free to focus on treating patients first, not entering codes on computers, and should not be tempted to change their medical judgment based on arbitrary or illogical reimbursement incentives. l Ensure sustainability and value for beneficiaries and taxpayers. Prices are best for patients when determined by economic value rather than political power and when they are known in advance of the receipt of services. Governmentâs use of non-market-based methods to determine reimbursement leads to overspending on low-value services and products and underpayment for high-value services and products, stifles beneficial innovation, and because of Medicareâs size distorts payments throughout the health care system. Intermediate entities that can manage financial risk and ensure quality of care are important in transitioning to value-based care within the Medicare program. l Reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, including through the use of artificial intelligence for their detection. Regulatory Reforms. Medicare regulations restrict choice of coverage and care. The next Administration should reintroduce and restore regulations and demonstrations from the Trump Administration that were withdrawn, weakened, or never finalized by the Biden Administration, including: l The Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technologies (MCIT) rule;
Introduction
â 284 â Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise âobservational studies,â and declared that everyone except children and infants below the age of two should don masks. Under COVID, as former director of HHSâs Office of Civil Rights Roger Severino writes in Chapter 14, the CDC exposed itself as âperhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government.â Nor is the CDC the only villain in this play. Severino writes of the National Institutes of Health, âDespite its popular image as a benign science agency, NIH was responsible for paying for research in aborted baby body parts, human animal chimera experimentsââin which the genes of humans and animals are mixed, âand gain-of-function viral research that may have been responsible for COVID-19.â Severino writes that âAnthony Fauciâs division of the NIHââthe National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseasesââowns half the patent for the Moderna COVID- 19 vaccine,â and âseveral NIH employeesâ receive âup to $150,000 annually from Moderna vaccine sales.â That would be the same experimental mRNA vaccine that the CDC now wants to force on children, who are at little to no risk from COVID-19 but at great risk from public health officials. The incestuous relationship between the NIH, CDC, and vaccine makersâwith all of the conflict of interest it entailsâcannot be allowed to continue, and the revolving door between them must be locked. As Severino writes, âFunding for scientific research should not be controlled by a small group of highly paid and unaccountable insiders at the NIH, many of whom stay in power for decades. The NIH monopoly on directing research should be broken.â Whatâs more, NIH has long âbeen at the forefront in pushing junk gender science.â The next HHS secretary should immediately put an end to the departmentâs foray into woke transgen- der activism. HHS also pushes abortion as a form of âhealth care,â skirting and sometimes blatantly defying the Hyde Amendment in the process. Severino writes that the âFDA shouldâŚreverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the polit- icized approval process was illegal from the start.â In addition, HHS programs often violate the spirit, and sometimes the letter, of conscience-protection laws. Severino writes that the HHS âSecretary should pursue a robust agenda to pro- tect the fundamental right to life, protect conscience rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology.â The next secretary should also reverse the Biden Administrationâs focus on ââLGBTQ+ equity,â subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage,â replacing such policies with those encouraging marriage, work, motherhood, fatherhood, and nuclear families. If there is another department that has gone off the rails like HHS during the Obama and Biden Administrations, it is the once proud Department of Justice (DOJ). As former counselor to the attorney general Gene Hamilton writes in Chap- ter 17, the department âhas a long and noble historyââEdmund Randolph, the first attorney general, took office the same year as President Washingtonâyet its â 285 â Section 3: The General Welfare longstanding reputation has been marred by the Biden Administrationâs abuse of the departmentâs powers for its own ends. Hamilton writes that the departmentâs âunprecedented politicization and weaponizationâ under Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland, resulting in âpolitically motivated and viewpoint-based prosecutionsâ of political enemies and indifference to the crimes of political allies, has made the department âa threat to the Republic.â The most important thing for the next attorney general to do is to refocus the department on its core functions of âprotecting public safety and defending the rule of law,â while restoring its âvalues of independence, impartiality, honesty, integrity, respect, and excellence.â This is especially true of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). A bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization, especially at the top, âthe FBI views itself as an independent agencyâ that is âon par with the Attorney General,â rather than as an agency that is under the AG and fully accountable to him or her. To rein in this âcompletely out of controlâ bureau and remind it of its place withinârather than at the top ofâthe DOJ hierarchy, Hamilton writes that the FBIâs separate Office of General Counsel (with âapproximately 300 attorneysâ), separate Office of Legislative Affairs, and separate Office of Public Affairs should all be abolished. Requiring the FBI to get its legal advice from the wider department âwould serve as a crucial check on an agency that has recently pushed past legal boundary after legal boundary.â Indeed, Hamilton writes, â[t]he next conservative Administra- tion should eliminate any offices within the FBI that it has the power to eliminate without any action from Congress.â Elsewhere, DOJ should target violent and career criminals, not parents; work to dismantle criminal organizations, partly by rigorously prosecuting interstate drug activity; and restart the Trump Administrationâs âChina Initiativeâ (to address Chinese espionage and theft of trade secrets), which the Biden Administration âter- minatedâŚlargely out of a concern for poor âoptics.ââ It should also enforce existing federal law that prohibits mailing abortifacients, rather than harassing pro-life demonstrators; respect the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech, rather than trying to police speech on the internet; and enforce federal immigra- tion laws, rather than pretending there is no border. In contrast to DOJâs long history, the Department of Education (the depart- ment, or ED), discussed by Lindsey Burke in Chapter 11, is a creation of the Jimmy Carter Administration. The department is a convenient one-stop shop for the woke education cartel, whichâas the COVID era showedâis not particularly concerned with childrenâs education. Schools should be responsive to parents, rather than to leftist advocates intent on indoctrinationâand the more the federal government is involved in education, the less responsive to parents the public schools will be. This department is an example of federal intrusion into a traditionally state and local realm. For the sake of American children, Congress should shutter it and return control of education to the states.
Introduction
â 273 â Agency for International Development of the agencyâs non-health, nonhumanitarian funding as well as almost all of its sectoral appropriations directives, including those that reflect the pet projects of individual Members of Congress. The Bureau is the policy and financial nexus at USAID for most of the Biden Administrationâs radical priorities in foreign assis- tance, including gender, climate change, and the promotion of identity-based politics. On the positive side, DDI is also the Bureau in charge of areas that will be crucial to a reorientation of USAID, including trade, economic growth, inno- vation, partnerships with the private sector, and the agencyâs relationship with communities of faith. The next conservative Administration should make the rapid staffing of key DDI positions a high priority. Besides the Senate-confirmed Assistant Administrator, the Directors of each of the Centers and Hubs in the Bureau will need political leadership. Almost every one of the agencywide policies that cover DDIâs areas of responsibility will need to be edited or rewritten entirely as soon as possible. The next conservative Administration should harvest DDIâs central appropriations to fund new priorities, especially working with ethnic and religious minorities and faith-based organizations and joint ventures with the private sector in education and energy. All DDI programs should issue funding opportunities restricted to new and underutilized partners modeled on the NPI. REGIONS Asia. Asia is the most populous continent and ground zero in the battle against Communist Chinaâs efforts to exploit the development needs of poor countries for geopolitical gain. Americaâs Indo-Pacific Strategy should guide USAIDâs approaches to disbursing foreign aid in the region. USAID should intensify its bilateral relationships with proâfree market Japan, Australia, South Korea, and India so that they can jointly advance private-sector solutions to secure financing for power generation, infrastructure, digital con- nectivity, investment and trade expansion, and other economic activities. USAID enjoys a strong in-country presence in India, buttressed by recent coordination on the global response to COVID-19 as India is a global leader in vaccine produc- tion. Those ties should be expanded. So too should development cooperation with Taiwan, which boasts effective pandemic response capacity that should be shared with developing countries. Chinaâs island-hopping efforts to capture vulnerable Pacific states is a direct strategic threat to U.S. maritime supremacy and homeland security, and USAID and its allied donors should neutralize these efforts through the deployment of targeted assistance such as helping countries combat the effects of Chinaâs ille- gal fishing. While China outpaces the ability of the democratic alliance to deploy state-backed financing to developing countries, it is unable to compete with our collective private-sector capacity to deploy trillions of dollars of capital.
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.