PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Tran, Derek [D-CA-45] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 15, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10349 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10349 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10349 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10349 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-10 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would create a federal pilot fellowship program to train mental health and substance use disorder treatment professionals to better serve emergency responders. Fellowships would support training after a bachelor’s degree and could include stipends. The program would aim to improve care and expand the workforce familiar with responders’ duties and stresses; those results are goals, not established effects.
The Secretary shall establish a pilot program, to be known as the Public Safety Mental Health Fellowship Program (in this section referred to as the program), under which the Secretary shall award fellowships, which may include stipends
improving the quality of mental health and substance use disorders prevention and treatment services delivered to emergency response providers
increasing the number of culturally competent mental health and substance use disorders treatment professionals who teach, administer services, conduct research, and provide direct mental health or substance use disorders services to emergency response providers.
The fellowships awarded under subsection (a) shall be for postbaccalaureate training (including for master’s and doctoral degrees)
with familiarity with, and understanding of, the duties and unique stressors of emergency response providers
Section 1 would name the legislation the Emergency Responders Mental Health Training Act, or EMT Act.
This Act may be cited as the Emergency Responders Mental Health Training Act or the EMT Act.
Section 2 would add the fellowship program to the Public Health Service Act. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would have to establish it within one year after enactment.
Part D of title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290dd) is amended by adding at the end the following: 554. Public safety mental health fellowships
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish the Public Safety Mental Health Fellowship Program
The program would also aim to improve practitioners’ knowledge of prevention, treatment, and recovery support for emergency responders with mental health or substance use disorders.
increasing the knowledge of mental health and substance use disorders treatment practitioners on issues related to prevention, treatment, and recovery support for individuals who are emergency response providers and who have a mental health or substance use disorder
Fellowships would cover training after a bachelor’s degree, including master’s and doctoral study. Eligible fields would include psychiatry, nursing, social work, psychology, marriage and family therapy, mental health counseling, and substance use disorder and addiction counseling.
The fellowships awarded under subsection (a) shall be for postbaccalaureate training (including for master’s and doctoral degrees) for mental health and substance use disorders treatment professionals, including in the fields of psychiatry, nursing, social work, psychology, marriage and family therapy, mental health counseling, and substance use disorder and addiction counseling.
For this program, a professional described as “culturally competent” would need to understand emergency responders’ duties and distinctive stresses, complete training that addresses trauma and responders’ circumstances as the Secretary considers appropriate, and have specialized knowledge and training about confidentiality and legal protections concerning testimony. Prior work as an emergency responder could contribute to that understanding but would not be required by this definition.
The term ‘culturally competent mental health and substance use disorders treatment professional’ means an individual— (A) with familiarity with, and understanding of, the duties and unique stressors of emergency response providers, which may include experience working as a emergency response provider; (B) who has completed a trauma-informed and culturally competent training curriculum, as the Secretary determines appropriate; and (C) who has distinct knowledge of, and is trained on the unique aspects of, confidentiality and testimonial privilege.
The emergency responders covered would include personnel of federal, state, and local government and nongovernmental organizations providing emergency public safety, fire, law enforcement, emergency response, or emergency medical services. Hospital emergency staff and related personnel would also be included.
The term emergency response provider includes the personnel of Federal, State, and local governmental and nongovernmental entities who provide emergency public safety, fire, law enforcement, emergency response, or emergency medical (including hospital emergency) services, and related personnel.
The bill would authorize Congress to provide $10 million for each fiscal year from 2028 through 2033. This authorization would not itself provide the money.
To carry out this section, there is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2028 through 2033.
The Secretary would have to report to Congress within two years after the program is established, analyzing its efficiency and assessing its impact on patient outcomes and system costs. An updated final report would be due within five years after establishment.
Not later than 2 years after the date of establishment of the program, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that— (i) analyzes the efficiency of the program; and (ii) assesses the impact of the program on patient outcomes and system costs.
Not later than 5 years after the date of establishment of the program, the Secretary shall submit to Congress an updated version of the report to be submitted under subparagraph (A).
Both reports would have to describe the program and its implementation, medical issues addressed, prevention and treatment strategies, successes and problems, and the impact of fellowships on responders’ health, including behavioral health. They would also have to recommend whether to renew the program’s authorization, change it, or end it.
The reports to be submitted under paragraph (1) shall each contain a description of— (A) the details of the program; (B) the implementation of the program; (C) the medical issues being addressed by fellowships awarded under the program; (D) the strategies developed under the program in providing mental health and substance use disorders prevention and treatment services; (E) any successes of and problems associated with the program; (F) the impact of fellowships awarded under the program on the health (including behavioral health) of emergency response providers; and (G) recommendations regarding reauthorizing, reforming, or terminating the program.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 15, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 10, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-15T14:25:29Z. 2026-09-10: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-09-10: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-10. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what other versions or accompanying materials contain.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. A general program authorization is not itself an earmark. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status cannot be established without relevant disclosures and accompanying materials, which were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The program’s intended beneficiaries do not by themselves constitute such a finding. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version and does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 15, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI