[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 10 (Thursday, February 3, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S987-S989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 289. A bill to authorize an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 
for mental health courts through fiscal year 2011; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Leahy 
and Domenici, to introduce a bill that would reauthorize ``America's 
Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act.'' This program addresses 
the impact that mentally ill offenders have had on our criminal justice 
system and the impact the system has had on the offenders and their 
special needs.
  My interest in, and experience with this issue began over 30 years 
ago, when I was working as Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney in 
Greene County, OH, and then as County Prosecutor. What I learned then--
and what I have continued to encounter throughout my career in public 
service--is that our State and local correctional facilities have 
become way stations for far too many mentally ill individuals in our 
Nation.
  A recent Justice Department study revealed that 16 percent of all 
inmates in America's State prisons and local jails today are mentally 
ill. The American Jails Association estimates that 600,000 to 700,000 
seriously mentally ill persons each year are booked into local jails, 
alone. In Ohio, nearly one in five prisoners need psychiatric services 
or special accommodations. As these statistics make clear, far too many 
of our Nation's mentally ill persons have ended up in our prisons and 
jails. In fact, on any given day, the Los Angeles County Jail is home 
to more mentally ill inmates than the largest mental health care 
institution in our country.
  How did we wind up in this situation? What happens is that all too 
often, the mentally ill act out their symptoms on the streets. They are 
arrested for minor offenses and wind up in jail. They serve their 
sentences or are paroled, but do not receive any treatment for their 
underlying mental illness. Not surprisingly, they often find themselves 
right back in the system only a short time later after committing 
additional--often more serious--crimes.
  Throughout this destructive cycle, law enforcement and corrections 
spend time and money trying to cope with the unique problems posed by 
these individuals. Certainly, many mentally ill

[[Page S989]]

offenders must be incarcerated because of the severity of their crimes. 
However, those who commit very minor, non-violent offenses don't 
necessarily need to be incarcerated; instead, if given appropriate 
treatment early, their illnesses could be addressed, helping the 
offenders, while reducing recidivism and decreasing the burdens on our 
police and corrections officials.
  That is why, six years ago Senator Domenici and I introduced 
America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, to begin to 
identify--early in the process--mentally ill offenders within our 
justice system and to use the power of the courts to assist them in 
obtaining the treatment they need.
  This program has been a success. In pilot programs around the 
country, mental health courts have begun to help local communities take 
steps toward effectively addressing the issues raised by the mentally 
ill in our justice system, and these steps must continue. The 
legislation that we are introducing today will help do that. Our bill 
would establish a Federal grant program to help States and localities 
develop mental health courts in their jurisdictions. These courts are 
specialized courts with separate dockets. They hear cases exclusively 
involving nonviolent offenses committed by individuals with a mental 
illness. Fundamentally, mental health courts enable State and local 
courts to offer alternative sentences or alternatives to prosecution 
for those offenders who could be served best by mental health services. 
These courts are designed to address the historic lack of coordination 
between local law enforcement and social service systems and bring them 
together to work within the criminal justice system.
  To deal with the separate needs of mentally ill offenders, these 
mental health courts are staffed by a core group of specialized 
professionals, including a dedicated judge, prosecutor, public 
defender, and court liaison to the mental health services community. 
The courts promote efficiency and consistency by centrally managing all 
outstanding cases involving a mentally ill defendant referred to the 
mental health court.
  Mental health court judges decide whether or not to hear each case 
referred to them. The courts only deal with defendants deemed mentally 
ill by qualified mental health professionals or the mental health court 
judge. Similarly, participation in the court by the mentally ill is 
voluntary; however, once the defendant volunteers for the Mental Health 
Court, he or she is expected to follow the decision of the court.

  For instance, in any given case, the mental health court judge, 
attorneys, and health services liaison may all agree on a plan of 
treatment as an alternative sentence or in lieu of prosecution. The 
defendant must adhere strictly to this court-imposed treatment plan. 
The court must then provide supervision, and quickly deal with any 
failure. This way, the court can quickly deal with any failure of the 
defendant to fulfill the treatment plan obligations. The mental health 
courts provide supervision of participants that is more intensive than 
might otherwise be available, with an emphasis on accountability and 
monitoring the participant's performance. In this sense, the mental 
heath courts function similarly to drug courts.
  Offenders with a mental illness who choose to have their cases heard 
in a mental health court often do so because that is the first real 
opportunity that many of these people have to seek treatment. A 
judicial program offering the possibility of effective treatment--
rather than jail time--gives a measure of hope and a chance for 
rehabilitation to these defendants.
  The successes of mental health courts are encouraging and show that 
we can improve the health and safety of our communities through these 
programs. In Ohio, the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services Board 
which serves Athens, Hocking and Vinton Counties, began operating its 
program on August 2003 after receiving a mental health court grant 
under the original America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project 
Act. Success stories from this program are numerous, but let me focus 
on one individual here. D.L. is a 53 year old man who struggled with 
Bipolar Disorder for years. Arrested for trespassing in 2003, D.L. was 
the ideal candidate for the Mental Health Court. Having completed 
individual counseling, and never missing a single psychiatric 
appointment, D.L. completed the program last May. He is now viewed as a 
potential mentor for other program participants.
  Many jurisdictions across America have established mental health 
courts as a result of the program that we established four years ago. 
Our Nation's communities are trying desperately to find the best way to 
cope with the problems associated with mental illness. Law enforcement 
agencies and correctional facilities remain challenged by difficulties 
posed by mental illnesses.
  Mental health courts offer a solution.
  Mental health courts have shown great success, and we must ensure 
their continuation. Our Nation has long been enriched by the dual 
ideals of compassion and justice, and these programs are a wonderful 
embodiment of both ideals. I urge my colleagues to join in support of 
this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 289

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 1001(a)(20) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(20)) is 
     amended by striking ``fiscal years 2001 through 2004'' and 
     inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 2011''.
                                 ______