[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 103 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5795-S5796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CONSULTATION REQUEST

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask consent that the following letter 
be placed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 2013.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I request that I be consulted 
     before the Senate enters into any unanimous consent 
     agreements or time limitations regarding S. 162, the Justice 
     and Mental Health Collaboration Act of 2013.
       I support the goals of this legislation and believe 
     incarcerated offenders suffering from mental illness should 
     have access to treatment. However, I believe the 
     responsibility to address this issue, as it relates to 
     inmates in state and local prisons and jails, lies with the 
     state and local governments that manage these correctional 
     systems. Furthermore, while I do not believe this issue is 
     the responsibility of the federal government; if Congress 
     does act, we can and must do so in a fiscally responsible 
     manner. My concerns are included in, but not limited to, 
     those outlined in this letter.
       While this bill is well-intentioned, it authorizes $40 
     million per year for five years, costing the American people 
     at least $200 million dollars without corresponding offsets. 
     Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not 
     yet scored the legislation. This bill authorizes new 
     permissible purposes for the existing grant program 
     including, among others, funding for veterans' treatment 
     courts, correctional facility programs, and state and local 
     law enforcement academy training. Expansion of services 
     through additional permissible purposes or new grant 
     programs, however, requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
     to carry out additional responsibilities. Thus, even if the 
     legislation may be implemented by existing DOJ staff, it is 
     not free of future administrative expenses or costs the CBO 
     may identify that would result in a score beyond the bill's 
     stated funding authorization.
       It is irresponsible for Congress to jeopardize the future 
     standard of living of our children by borrowing from future 
     generations. The U.S. national debt is now over $16.7 
     trillion. That means almost $53,000 in debt for each man, 
     woman and child in the United States. A year ago, the 
     national debt was $15.9 trillion. Despite pledges to control 
     spending, Washington adds billions to the national debt every 
     single day. In just one year, our national debt has grown by 
     $800 billion or 5%.
       In addition to these fiscal concerns, there are several 
     problems specific to this legislation. First, while I 
     recognize both our federal and state criminal justice systems 
     must accommodate mentally ill offenders, which is a difficult 
     and costly task, it is not the responsibility of the federal 
     government to provide funding to treat this population of 
     offenders within state and local prison systems.
       In fact, states face a much larger challenge than the 
     federal government, as they incarcerate the vast majority of 
     inmates in this country. According to the Department of 
     Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), of the 1.59 
     million total inmate population in 2011, 1.38 million are 
     incarcerated in state facilities compared to 216,362 in the 
     federal system. As a result, states also care for the largest 
     population of mentally ill offenders. The most recent BJS 
     data notes 56 percent of state inmates and 64 percent of jail 
     inmates displayed a mental health problem compared with 45 
     percent of federal inmates. Furthermore, BJS found only 8.9% 
     of federal inmates displayed both a history and symptoms of 
     mental health problems, while over 17% of state and local 
     inmates experienced those problems. Thus, although states 
     have an awesome responsibility in this area, they also have a 
     great opportunity to lead by way of experience and example. 
     Many have done so by developing and funding their own 
     innovative ideas to enhance programs for and treatment of 
     mentally ill inmates.
       In September 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
     Subcommittee on Human Rights held a hearing entitled, ``Human 
     Rights at Home: Mental Illness in U.S. Prisons and Jails,'' 
     in which we heard testimony from representatives of two state 
     prison systems and a state court judge who outlined the 
     different challenges faced by their states. These states and 
     others have taken action to address their mentally ill prison 
     populations, but often each tackles the problem with a 
     different approach. For example, from 2003-2007, New York 
     legislators and governors engaged in a battle over reforming 
     the slate's policies on this issue, and in 2007, Oklahoma 
     established a program to provide inmates with serious mental 
     illness a comprehensive plan for release, including access to 
     support services and medication. The program set up two 
     intensive care coordination teams in Oklahoma City and Tulsa 
     to help state inmates close to release obtain access to 
     community mental health centers, among other services.
       There is significant diversity within the inmate population 
     both among states and between state and federal prison 
     systems, Oklahoma and New York incarcerate different types of 
     inmates with different mental

[[Page S5796]]

     health needs. Indeed, each addressed the problem with diverse 
     solutions--New York focused on in-prison treatment 
     alternatives, while Oklahoma chose to provide post-
     incarceration support services. Thus, the one-size-fits-all 
     approach to treating mentally ill state and local inmates 
     outlined in this legislation also fails to address the 
     variety of state needs.
       Second, Congress should focus instead on its duty to 
     federal inmates within the DOJ Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Over 
     the last several years, BOP costs have significantly 
     increased such that its budget is poised to surpass the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as the largest 
     percentage of the entire DOJ budget. In its FY 2014 budget 
     submission, the DOJ requested approximately $6.9 billion for 
     the federal BOP, an increase of $295.1 million over FY 2012. 
     As a result, the BOP represents 25 percent of the entire DOJ 
     budget ($27.6 billion), with the FBI barely ahead at $8.44 
     billion, representing 30.5 percent of the DOJ budget. 
     Congress must live up to its responsibility to conduct 
     oversight and set an example to the states by ensuring the 
     BOP's massive budget appropriately allocates taxpayer dollars 
     for all of its programs, including services for mentally ill 
     offenders who are truly in need of treatment.
       However, S. 162 ignores the problems within the federal 
     BOP. The bill funds the Adult and Juvenile Collaboration 
     Program grant for state and local governments to use federal 
     dollars to support treatment and services for state and local 
     inmates who are mentally ill. It also expands this grant 
     program to allow funds to be used for services for veterans 
     treatment courts, training for employees of state and local 
     correctional facilities to respond to incidents involving 
     mentally ill inmates, and support for state and local law 
     enforcement orientation programs, continuing education and 
     academy curricula. By failing to address the challenges faced 
     by mentally ill inmates within the federal BOP, Congress 
     exacerbates its misplaced spending priorities.
       Finally, I do not believe the federal government has the 
     authority under the Constitution to provide federal funds to 
     state and local governments to provide services to state and 
     local inmates with mental health problems or provide training 
     to state and local law enforcement officers. Article I, 
     Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the limited powers 
     of Congress, and nowhere are we tasked with funding or 
     becoming involved with state and local corrections issues.
       There is no question those who suffer from mental illness 
     should be treated appropriately while incarcerated. However, 
     I believe this issue, as it pertains to state and local 
     inmates, is the responsibility of the states and not the 
     federal government. Despite these Constitutional limitations, 
     if Congress does act in this area, like most American 
     individuals and companies must do with their own resources, 
     we should evaluate current programs, determine any needs that 
     may exist, and prioritize those needs for funding by cutting 
     from the federal budget programs fraught with waste, fraud, 
     abuse, and duplication.
           Sincerely,
                                              Tom A. Coburn, M.D.,
     U.S. Senator.

                          ____________________