PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 2001
Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a grants program for Resource Staff for Students. Direct the Secretary of Education to make such grants to local educational agencies for recruiting, training, and hiring 100,000 individuals to serve as school-based resource staff who have documented competence and training in mental health, as well as other specified minimum qualifications.Requires such resource staff to work with students to: (1) reduce the student-to-counseling ratios nationally, in grades 6-12, to an average of one such staff member for every 250 students; (2) help address the mental, emotional, and developmental needs of public school students; and (3) support other school staff and teachers in reaching students early before problems arise, conducting behavioral interventions to improve school discipline, and developing the awareness and skills to identify early warning signs of violence and the need for mental health services.
People & committees
Rep. Mink, Patsy T. [D-HI-2] · D–HI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E125)
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: Mar 23, 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.466 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.466 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.466 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.466 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.