PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 10, 2025
No Wrong Door for Veterans Act
This bill reauthorizes through FY2028 and modifies the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which awards grants to eligible entities to provide or coordinate suicide prevention services for veterans and members of the Armed Forces and their families.
Among other elements, the bill
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
adjusts the maximum amount for grants awarded under the program and provides for additional funding per individual who receives suicide prevention services provided or coordinated by a grantee;
requires the VA to provide briefings about the grant program at least once a year to certain personnel at each VA medical center located within 100 miles from the primary location of a grantee;
requires baseline mental health screenings for risk provided as suicide prevention services under the program to use a protocol selected by the VA; and
modifies eligibility requirements for entities seeking grants, including by authorizing applications from health care providers.
In subsequent applications, grantees who have previously received funds under the program must include evidence that previously awarded funds served a significant number of veterans.
The bill requires grantees to notify (1) eligible individuals that they may receive emergent suicide care furnished or paid for by the VA, and (2) the VA if eligible individuals request emergent suicide care.
People & committees
Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1] · R–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Considered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Bost objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1969.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2175-2177; text: CR H2175-2176)
Mr. Bost moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 76.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H. Rept. 119-103.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H. Rept. 119-103.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 7 - 5.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 13, 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.1969 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.1969 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.1969 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.1969 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.