Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 126 (Wednesday, August 5, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 126 (Wednesday, August 5, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6384-S6401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. SULLIVAN:
S. 1944. A bill to require each agency to repeal or amend 1 or more
rules before issuing or amending a rule; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1944, the
RED Tape Act of 2015.
The letters R-E-D stand for Regulations Endanger Democracy. They do,
and they are. This bill will help cut burdensome regulations--
regulations that I think everybody agrees have been strangling our
economy, regulations that many of my colleagues and I and economists
around the country and around the world believe are at the heart of why
we can't grow the great American economy.
Let me spend a few minutes on the economy, what the regulations are
doing, and why I believe this bill is so important and why we are
working hard to get bipartisan support for it.
There is a debate going on in this country and on the Senate floor:
Are we in decline? Is America in decline? Are our best days behind us?
Is China going to own the 21st century the way we did the last century?
Now, I am an optimist. I don't think we are in decline. We don't need
to be in decline. Here is the reason why. We don't hear about it much,
but when we look and compare the United States to other countries, we
have so many comparative advantages. We still have so many comparative
advantages.
Imagine the United States is in a global poker game with all the
other major nations of the world around the table. We don't hear this
much, but relative to other countries, we look at our hand and we hold
aces. As a matter of fact, we hold most of the aces. Let me give a few
examples.
The high-tech sector. Whether it is Silicon Valley, Massachusetts,
places throughout the entire country, we still have the most vibrant,
innovative high-tech sector of anyplace in the world, the ability to
commercialize ideas with private equity and financing. If you have a
good idea, an entrepreneurial idea in America, you can commercialize
that, you can take that to market more quickly, more efficiently than
any other place in the world.
Our agriculture sector for decades has been probably the most
efficient agriculture sector in the world, feeding the world,
literally.
Universities. Look at America's universities relative to any other
place, any other country. I had the great honor--my oldest daughter of
my three teenaged daughters graduated from high school last year. My
wife and I took her to a number of universities she was looking at
across the country. We have States--Massachusetts, California--that
probably have better top research universities just in those States
than other countries have in their entire country. In my State of
Alaska, we have great universities. It is a huge advantage.
Energy. Once again through American innovation, we are the world's
energy superpower again, the way we used to be, producing more oil,
more gas, more renewables than any other country in the world. It is a
huge advantage.
Fisheries. We are one of the top countries in the world in terms of
the harvest of fisheries, and my State of Alaska is the superpower of
American seafood. We harvest more than 50 percent of all seafood in
America--a huge advantage for our country.
The military. I don't have to say much more about the military. We
have the best, most professional military in the world, probably in the
history of the world, unrivaled by any other nation, not even close.
Then even issues like--we talk a lot about immigration and how our
system is broken and how the border needs to be secured. Absolutely.
But we are still the country of the world that other people of the
world want to come to. They want to come here.
I recently attended a naturalization ceremony in Juneau, AK. If you
want to take pride in our country, if you want to see something great,
go to a naturalization ceremony. See people who have been thinking
about becoming an American for most of their lives finally achieving
that goal. It will bring tears to your eyes. It brought tears to my
eyes.
Then, of course, in terms of comparative advantages, there is our
form of government, our Framers, our Constitution--the longest standing
constitutional democracy in the world. It certainly is not perfect, but
again, relative to other countries, it is a huge advantage.
So, as I mentioned, we have all the aces. In that big global game of
poker, we have a great hand. As President Reagan said a couple decades
ago, we are ``the greatest, freest, strongest nation on earth.'' And I
believe we still are.
But, of course, like all countries, we have challenges. Here is the
biggest challenge, I believe: If we have all the aces, if we have all
these comparative advantages, why can't we grow our economy anymore?
Why can't we create opportunities for young college graduates?
Our gross domestic product shrunk the first quarter of this year for
the third time in the last 9 years. That hasn't happened in more than
60 years. From 2011 through 2014, our gross domestic product only grew
at a little bit below 2 percent.
The comparative advantage, the growth rate that made our country
great from 1790 to 2014--U.S. real GDP growth in real dollars--averaged
an annual rate of 3.7 percent--almost 4 percent GDP growth. That is the
average for our country's history. That is real, robust American
growth. That is what made us great. The Obama administration's average
is 1.36 percent per year.
Just last week--and I know this is an issue that you and I have
talked a lot about--it was revealed that we now

[[Page S6385]]

have officially the worst economic recovery in 70 years.
An article in the Wall Street Journal says that new GDP revisions
show the worst recovery in 70 years and it was even weaker than we
thought. This is a huge problem. We can no longer grow our economy.
When that happens, we hurt the most vulnerable in society. But what is
even more frustrating than that is when you come to Washington, it
seems that nobody actually seems to care about this topic anymore or
that we are going to dumb down our expectations.
It was pretty amazing. Some economists cheered. Our growth rate that
was announced last quarter was a little bit over 2 percent GDP growth,
and they cheered it. But, again, the issue doesn't even seem to be
something that people here are focused on.
Let me give you an example. The first quarter of this year, the U.S.
economy--the greatest economy in the world--went back into recession.
We shrunk. That is a big deal. That should frighten people. Did the
White House say anything? Did the Secretary of the Treasury come out
and say: Oh, my gosh, we are back in a recession; here is what we are
going to do to grow this economy because we know growth is the key to
almost everything.
Not a word--in fact, what is starting to happen is--and it is a very,
very dangerous trend in Washington--we are just going to dumb down our
expectations. Yes, traditional levels of U.S. economic growth are
almost 4 percent since the founding of our Nation. But guess what we
are going to call it now. We are going to call 2 percent growth--which
is all we can achieve, it seems--the new normal. We are not going to
try to get back to 4 percent, the traditional levels. Democrats and
Republicans have done that for decades, centuries. We are going to say:
No, America, you need to be satisfied with the new normal--2 percent
GDP growth.
Terms such as the ``new normal,'' ``secular stagnation''--some are
even talking that this is our destiny as a nation. I don't like that
term--``new normal.'' It is a surrender. It is a surrender of American
greatness. It is a surrender of our future, and it is a surrender of
our kids' future.
If we stay at these levels of growth--1.5 percent, 2 percent of GDP
growth; the Obama administration growth levels--the challenges that we
face are huge debt, infrastructure, funding the military, funding
social programs, and even the cohesion of our great American country.
All of these challenges will be much, much harder to address.
I believe one of the most important things we can do in this body,
which we are not doing enough of, is to focus on this issue. Why are we
not growing the American economy anymore? We have to get back to these
robust levels of growth--Democratic, Republican levels. We have to get
back to traditional levels of growth.
We can do better. Our history is better. This is the greatest economy
in the world, and we need to unleash it. What is the problem? How do we
do this? How do we get back to these levels of growth? If we are
holding all the aces, what is holding us back?
I believe a huge part of the problem of what is holding us back is
actually this town, the Federal Government, and the agencies here that
are stifling economic growth with redtape from the alphabet soup of
agencies--the IRS, the EPA, and the BLM--that are constantly
promulgating new regulations. As opposed to being partners in
opportunity, our Federal Government wants to regulate everything, all
aspects of our economy.
Regulations across the country, from Alaska to Maine, are hurting
businesses, are hurting the economy, and are hurting our citizens,
especially the most vulnerable. Again, this is not a partisan issue.
Almost all of us on both sides of the aisle agree that we need to cut
redtape. Even President Obama's own Small Business Administration puts
the number--the annual cost of regulations that grow every year--at
$1.7 trillion per year. It is almost $1.8 trillion per year. If that
were the economy, that would be one of the largest economies in the
world. That is a staggering number, and they are growing. Regulatory
costs amount to an average of almost $15,000 per household. It is
around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,000. People are
noticing, not only in this country but globally.
On Friday, the Financial Times had an article: ``The land of free
markets, tied down by red tape.''

Every nation needs a unifying idea. Americans love to see
themselves as champions of free markets and entrepreneurial
zeal.

That halo is coming off America because of regulations. What should
we do? I believe we need to freeze the growth of regulations. That is
what my bill, the RED Tape Act of 2015, does.
The cumulative Federal rules since 1976 is what we do here. We grow
them like some irresistible force of nature. But it doesn't have to be
that way. Unfortunately, my State has been ground zero for many
overburdensome regulations--bridges, roads, and mines that take years
simply to permit, not to build.
In rural Alaska, we are letting trash pile up because they don't make
small, portable incinerators that comply with EPA regulations. Because
of Federal roadless rules in southeast Alaska, we can't even build new
alternative energy plants for energy-starved citizens of my State.
Nationally, bridges are crumbling and can't get built because of overly
burdensome regulations.
Let me provide one more example that you are aware of, Mr. President.
Banks are failing. Because of regulations and a bad economy, over 1,300
small community banks have disappeared since 2010, and only two new
banks in the United States have been chartered in the last 5 years.
Even during the Great Depression we had on average 19 new banks a year.
In the last 5 years, we have had two. As the article said, ``the
entrepreneurial halo is starting to slip, too, since increasing
quantities of red tape are making life harder for start-ups.''
Let me be clear. Regulations are not all bad. Many of them keep us
safe from harm. But the mountains and stacks of regulations over the
decades undermine our future.
What my bill would do is very simple. It is using a simple one-in,
one-out method. New regulations that cause financial or administrative
burdens on businesses for the people of the United States would need to
be offset by repealing existing regulations. You issue a new reg and
you repeal an old reg. If an agency doesn't want to do this, the cost
of living adjustments for the agency personnel will be withheld until
the agency abides by this law. It is very simple.
What we need to do is stop this growth of regulations on the American
people and on our economy. This bill will help keep the regulatory
system under control. It will help cut the redtape that binds us. It
will bind the regulatory system instead, and it will help bring back
the shine of that entrepreneurial halo in great American spirit that we
all yearn for.
Finally, it will make sure that the aces we have in our hand--the
comparative advantages that we have over every other country in the
world--are used to benefit our country, grow our economy, and create a
brighter future for our children.
I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Cotton, Mrs.
Capito, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Crapo):
S. 1957. A bill to require the Attorney General to provide State
officials with access to criminal history information with respect to
certain financial service providers required to undergo State criminal
background checks, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the State
Licensing Efficiency Act with my colleagues Senators Lankford, Cotton,
Capito, Leahy, Merkley, and Crapo.
This bill provides a simple, commonsense change to the Secure and
Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act, SAFE Act, which became law
in 2008 as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act.
Overall, this bipartisan bill streamlines the licensing process for
financial service providers, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
The SAFE Act required that state banking regulators use the
electronic Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System, NMLS, to license or
register mortgage loan originators.
As the author of the SAFE Act, I have been pleased to see the NMLS'
success over the past five years in facilitating mortgage loan
originator licensing.

[[Page S6386]]

The use of the NMLS for mortgage loan originators benefits state
regulators, those seeking licenses to conduct financial services, and
consumers.
First, it increases efficiency and consolidates the licensing process
and relevant information in one place for state regulators. This also
allows for easier coordination between regulators.
Second, it provides a uniform licensing process for mortgage loan
originators seeking licenses.
Finally, it allows consumers to verify the credentials of financial
service providers to ensure that they are truly licensed or registered
in the state in which they are conducting business.
Today, over half of the States now use the NMLS for licensing
entities other than mortgage loan originators, including for non-
depository financial service providers like check cashers, debt
collectors, and money transmitters.
Many States require Federal background checks as part of the
licensing process for financial service providers.
However, the SAFE Act only provided the Attorney General with the
authority to share federal background check information with the NMLS
for mortgage loan originators.
The FBI does not have the authority to share this information with
the NMLS for any other financial service provider.
This means that while the rest of the licensing process for other
financial service providers can be conducted through the NMLS, the
background check cannot.
I believe background checks are a critical component of State
licensing and regulation. It does not make sense to allow for the
licensing process to be delayed by barring certain background checks
from being coordinated through the NMLS.
The State Licensing Efficiency Act would provide the authorization
needed for the Attorney General to allow the FBI to share background
check information for non-depository financial service providers with
state regulators through the NMLS, just as it currently does for
mortgage loan originators.
Let me be clear that this bill does not change any state licensing
requirements or impact any state laws. States fully retain the ability
to determine when they want to use the NMLS for other financial service
providers.
However, should states continue to expand their utilization of the
NMLS, it makes sense to allow them to fully do so by ensuring federal
background checks can be coordinated through the NMLS.
Additionally, this bill will help financial service providers seeking
licenses in multiple states.
Instead of submitting federal background check requests for each
State where they are seeking a license, they can submit one request via
the NMLS for Federal background check information, which will be sent
to the NMLS.
States conducting the licensing process will then have access to the
information through the NMLS.
This should reduce the number of background check processing fees
paid by financial service providers seeking licenses and reduce the
processing period for the background checks so that financial service
providers can get licensed more efficiently.
The State Licensing Efficiency Act makes a reasonable change to allow
state regulators who use the NMLS for licensing financial service
providers to fully benefit from a streamlined, transparent, and more
efficient process.
Many regulatory associations support this bill including: the
Conference of State Bank Supervisors, the American Association of
Residential Mortgage Regulators, the Money Transmitter Regulators
Association, the North American Collection Agency Regulatory
Association, and the National Association of Consumer Credit
Administrators.
Additionally, associations representing a variety of financial
service providers have voiced support, including: the Appraisal
Institute, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the Money Services
Round Table.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and am
hopeful that this Congress will move it forward.
______

By Mr. REED (for himself and Mrs. Shaheen):
S. 1960. A bill to establish a statute of limitations for certain
actions of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that
extends the time period the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC,
would have to seek civil monetary penalties for securities law
violations.
This legislation continues to be necessary in light of the Supreme
Court's decision in Gabelli v. SEC in which the Court held that the 5
year clock to take action aginst wrongdoing starts when the fraud
occurs, not when it is discovered. Unfortunately, Gabelli has made it
more difficult for the SEC to protect investors by shortening the
amount of time that the SEC has to investigate and pursue securities
law violations.
Financial fraud has evolved considerably over the years and now often
consists of multiple parties, complex financial products, and elaborate
transactions that are executed in a variety of securities markets, both
domestic and foreign. As a result, the evidence of wrongdoing needed to
initiate an action may go undetected for years. Securities law
violators may simply run out the clock, now with greater ease in the
aftermath of Gabelli.
Couple this with the reality that while we have given the SEC even
greater responsibilities, Congress, despite my ongoing efforts to urge
otherwise, has not provided the agency with all the resources necessary
to carry out its duties.
To give an example of the impact of this resource shortfall, SEC
Chair White on May 5, 2015, before the Senate Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Subcommittee testified that ``even
with the SEC's efficient use of limited resources to improve its risk
assessment capabilities and focus its examination staff on areas posing
the greatest risk to investors--efforts that helped to increase the
number of investment adviser examinations approximately 20 percent from
fiscal year 2013--the SEC was only able to examine 10 percent of
registered investment advisers in fiscal year 2014. A rate of adviser
examination coverage at that level presents a high risk to the
investing public.''
This legislation would address some of these challenges by giving the
SEC the breathing room it needs to better protect our markets and
investors. Specifically, this bill extends the time period the SEC has
to seek civil monetary penalties from five years to ten years, thereby
strengthening the integrity of our markets, better protecting
investors, and empowering the SEC to investigate and pursue more
securities law violators, particularly those most sophisticated at
evading detection.
In addition, the bill would align the SEC's statute of limitations
with the limitations period applicable to complex civil financial fraud
actions initiated pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, FIRREA. For more than 20 years,
the Department of Justice, DOJ, has benefited from FIRREA, which allows
the DOJ to seek civil penalties within a 10-year time period against
persons who have committed fraud against financial institutions. The
SEC, which pursues similarly complex financial fraud cases, should have
the same time necessary to bring wrongdoers that violate the securities
laws to justice.
I thank Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, Consumer Action, the Consumer
Federation of America, and Americans for Financial Reform for their
support, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Shaheen and me in
supporting this legislation.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Casey, Mr. Bennet,
Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Menendez):
S. 1964. A bill to amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social
Security Act to invest in funding prevention and family services to
help keep children safe and supported at home with their families, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of great
importance: helping vulnerable children stay safe and cared for by
strengthening their families and connecting them to kin.
I would like to begin with a hypothetical. Imagine a single mom with

[[Page S6387]]

two kids and multiple part time jobs. She works long hours to provide
for her family, but even then it is a struggle to pay the bills and
keep food on the table. Reliable child care is extremely costly and out
of reach. Because her work schedule changes week to week she is forced
to leave her children unattended at times. Out of concern, a neighbor
places a call to Child Protective Services, and a social worker then
has to choose between two bad options--breaking up the family, or doing
nothing at all to help them.
Today, most youngsters in foster care aren't there because of
physical or sexual abuse. Kids predominantly wind up in foster care
because their biological families, like that hypothetical single mom,
are ensnared in terribly desperate circumstances that lead to neglect.
The fact is, whenever you talk with kids who have aged out of foster
care about what could have helped them the most, you hear them say
things like, ``helping my mom . . . helping my dad . . . helping my
family.'' What that tells me is that youngsters know they're best
served when a family can be propped up, not dismantled.
Unfortunately, the child welfare system has too few tools for that to
happen. Yesterday, the Finance Committee held a hearing to explore how
to turn that system around--how to make a difference for kids early on
so that they can grow up surrounded by family in a safe and loving
home. I commend Chairman Hatch for his commitment to improving the
lives of vulnerable kids and their families. The hearing was an
important step forward.
Back in the mid-1990s, there was a debate over whether sending kids
to orphanages was the right idea. And I saw an opportunity for our
child welfare policies to break into the enormous, untapped potential
of kin. So I authored the Kinship Care Act, which said that aunts and
uncles or grandparents who met the right standards would have first
preference when it came to caring for a niece or nephew or grandchild.
It became the first federal law of its kind.
Now in 2015, I see an opportunity for Congress to take a similar
approach, but go even further. I believe that building child welfare
policies around proactivity and flexibility will help a lot more
families stay together and thrive. States have already shown that with
waivers from the rigid Federal funding system, they're able to turn
smart ideas into meaningful results for kids and their families, There
is a tremendous example that my home state of Oregon is currently
putting in place. It's called Differential Response. Differential
Response, as I see it, is all about recognizing that every kid is
different, and every family faces unique challenges. So Oregon's system
is approaching every case with the nuance it deserves.
Today I--along with Senators Stabenow, Bennet, Casey, Brown,
Cantwell, Schumer, and Menendez--am introducing the Family Stability
and Kinship Care Act that will make badly needed flexibility a core
part of our child welfare system. The purpose of this bill is to give
states and tribes the ability to make modest front-end investments in
family services and kinship placement in order to reduce costly and
traumatic stays in foster care. Under current law, title IV-E of the
Social Security Act, the nation's largest child welfare funding stream,
provides states and tribes with a Federal funding match for children
only after they are placed in foster care. In contrast, State and
tribal innovations implemented through title IV-E waivers suggest that
permitting spending for preventive family services can reduce the
prevalence and length of foster care placements while maintaining or
improving safety and permanency outcomes for children. Further, State
experiences with subsidized guardianship demonstrate that when children
cannot remain with their parents, they do best when placed with kin.
This bill enhances Federal funding available under parts B and E of
title IV of the Social Security Act for prevention and family services
to help keep children safe and supported at home with their parents or
other family members. It gives states and tribes the flexibility to
adapt evidence-based family services to the specific needs of each
family. It ensures that states and tribes are held accountable for
allocating services in ways that maximize safety, permanency, and well-
being for children, while minimizing the prevalence of lengthy foster
care placements.
We need more than two options--foster care or nothing--when the child
protection system gets involved. By helping families afford child care,
maybe it is possible to prevent outright neglect. Maybe mom or dad
needs counseling or medical help. Maybe they need help covering the
bills or finding employment. Oftentimes, a youngster's aunt, uncle, or
grandparents could step up and take them in, but they shouldn't have to
take on that job without assistance. More often than not, in my
judgement, it's absolutely worth exploring those avenues before
breaking a family apart. In fact, it can save resources in the long run
without compromising on safety.
I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch and the full Senate to
advance this legislation and I am hopeful that together, we can make
this critical investment in children and their families.
______

By Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mr. Paul, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1965. A bill to place restrictions on the use of solitary
confinement for juveniles in Federal custody; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today I am proud to stand here with
Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Dick Durbin in introducing the
Maintaining dignity and Eliminating unnecessary Restrictive Confinement
of Youths Act of 2015, or the MERCY Act. This bipartisan bill would
prohibit juvenile detention facilities from placing federally
adjudicated delinquents in solitary confinement and would limit the use
of such confinement for all juveniles in federal pretrial detainment.
Prolonged use of solitary confinement of young people often results in
severe psychological harm and it is time the federal government leads
on this issue and bans the practice.
The juvenile justice system was created because it has always been
understood that children are different than adults and need special
protection. It was founded on the principle that youth are malleable
and, therefore, the focus should be on rehabilitation rather than
punishment. Adolescents are still developing psychologically and
physiologically and have different needs than adults. In fact, research
has shown that brains in humans do not fully develop in most
individuals until the age of 25, which underscores the fragility of
these young Americans. Unfortunately, our juvenile justice system has
lost its way and the emphasis has shifted from one of rehabilitation to
punishment. Children are finding themselves trapped in a criminal
justice system that does more harm than good and nowhere is that more
evident than in the practice of solitary confinement.
In 2011 alone, more than 95,000 youth were held in prisons and jails,
and a significant number were held in isolation. In 2013, the
Department of Justice found that 47 percent of juvenile detention
centers locked youth in solitary confinement for more than four hours
at a time, and some held youth for up to 23 hours a day with no human
interaction. Words can hardly explain the horrors many children face
while placed in isolation. Young people held in solitary suffer from
resounding psychological and neurological damage, including depression,
hallucinations, paranoia, anger, and anxiety. U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Anthony Kennedy recently commented on the practice of solitary
confinement in an opinion and said, ``The penal system has a solitary
confinement regime that will bring you to the edge of madness, perhaps
to madness itself.'' The negative impact that this practice can have on
youth is evidenced by the fact that studies have shown that half of all
suicides by juveniles in detention facilities occurred in isolation.
Medical experts to civil and human rights advocates have made calls
to end this horrible practice. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on
Torture called for the practice to be banned across the globe. Despite
the extensive data that demonstrates the harmful nature of solitary,
the United States continues to use solitary confinement at alarming
rates. It is time the United

[[Page S6388]]

States catch up to international standards and ban the use of
unnecessary juvenile solitary confinement.
The MERCY Act would prohibit the use of solitary confinement of youth
adjudicated delinquent in the Federal system, unless it is a temporary
response to a serious risk of harm to the juvenile or others.
Additionally, it would preclude the use of solitary confinement of any
youth awaiting trial in federal court regardless of whether that person
is being tried as an adult or juvenile. The bill ensures that before a
juvenile is placed in room confinement, the staff member must use the
least restrictive techniques, including de-escalation techniques or
discussions with a qualified mental health professional. It mandates
that juveniles be informed of why the room confinement placement
occurred and that release will occur upon the youth regaining self-
control or a certain period of time has elapsed. The Mercy Act limits
solitary confinement on juveniles that pose a risk of harm to others to
no more than 3 hours and to juveniles who pose a risk of harm to
themselves to no more than half an hour. Finally, after the maximum
periods of confinement expires, the bill mandates that juveniles be
transferred to a facility where appropriate services can be provided.
If we truly want our criminal justice system to reflect our founding
principles as a nation of liberty and justice for all, we must promote
a more compassionate, common sense approach to rehabilitation that
helps restore promise in our young people. It is time we ban the
solitary confinement of youth and I urge the speedy passage of the
bipartisan MERCY Act.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 1971. A bill to expand the boundary of the California Coastal
National Monument, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the California
Coastal National Monument Expansion Act, legislation that would expand
the current Monument to include about 6,200 acres of pristine public
lands across four California counties. I am proud to be joined in this
effort by my friend from California, Senator Dianne Feinstein.
In 2000, President Clinton made history when he designated the
California Coastal National Monument, which stretches the entire 1,100
miles of California's coastline and protects more than 20,000 small
islands, rocks, exposed reefs and islands between Mexico and Oregon. It
also protects the habitat for a variety of wildlife including seabirds,
California sea lions and southern sea otters.
In 2012, I introduced legislation with Senator Feinstein and
Congressman Mike Thompson to expand the Monument to include the Point
Arena-Stornetta Public Lands in Mendocino County. We were grateful when
President Obama took action last year to add these spectacular lands as
the first onshore addition to the monument.
The legislation we are introducing today would expand the California
Coastal National Monument again to include five more onshore sites,
creating a new network of federal coastal properties for the public to
enjoy. By highlighting these sites, the measure would also boost
tourism and the economy of communities up and down the coast.
Each one of these new areas is unique, with its own rugged landscape,
its own majestic views of the Pacific Ocean and its own history. Each
piece tells us part of the fascinating story of the development of
California and our Nation.
In Humboldt County, one of my State's northern most counties, this
legislation would protect Trinidad Head--13 acres of rocky shoreline
which offers visitors breathtaking views of offshore sea stacks and the
City of Trinidad, the oldest town on the northern California coast. The
land is also home to the historic Trinidad Head lighthouse, which dates
back to 1871 when it helped guide vessels carrying lumber up and down
the Redwood Coast.
The Lost Coast Headlands in Humboldt County would also be included,
providing visitors access to 440 acres of some of the most spectacular
scenery in northern California. From alpine forests and rolling
mountains to coastal bluffs south of the mouth of the Eel River, this
area offers a little something for every outdoor enthusiast, whether it
is hiking, bird watching or beachcombing. These lands also played an
important role during the Cold War when the U.S. Navy opened a post
there to monitor Soviet submarines.
The Monument would be expanded to encompass Lighthouse Ranch, about
11 miles south of Eureka, which sits on eight acres of a former U.S.
Coast Guard station once used as a Christian commune. Today, it offers
breathtaking, panoramic views of the Eel River Delta, Humboldt Bay and
the Pacific Ocean.
Drive about 350 miles south of Humboldt County to Santa Cruz County
and you will discover the Cotoni-Coast Dairies--5,780 acres of former
dairy and cement plant lands. Its name is a nod to the Cotoni Indians,
who lived there for thousands of years, and the Swiss dairy farmers who
ran the land as a farm and ranch for much of the 20th century. The
area, which would also be included in the Monument, draws in visitors
with its redwoods, coastal grasslands, foothills and watersheds that
flow directly into the northern Monterrey Bay.
The bill would also preserve Piedras Blancas--20 acres with 425
state-owned acres cooperatively managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, BLM, in Big Sur. Named for three white rocks just off the
end of the point, the area is well-known for its historic 19th century
lighthouse and is also an important ecological research area. Tourists
come to catch a glimpse of a beautiful landscape untouched by
development and see wildlife like Elephant Seals, sea lions and sea
birds.
Additionally our legislation would protect one offshore site--a group
of small rocks and islands off the coast of Orange County. Back in the
1930s, the Coast Guard considered using these properties for
lighthouses, but the agency now agrees they should be permanently
protected as part of the National Monument. Under this bill, these
amazing rocks and islands will remain a pristine part of California's
natural heritage.
These are some of the most magnificent lands in the country, and we
have a responsibility to protect them for current and future
generations. That is why expanding the California Coastal National
Monument is so critical.
The new designation would permanently protect each site from
development and would ensure stronger protections for a diverse array
of wildlife that call the area home, many of which are endangered. It
would also help restore habitats and protect water quality by placing
these properties under one management plan to allow for better
coordination of available resources.
Expanding the Monument is not just good for our conservation
efforts--it is also good for the economy. Each of these natural
treasures showcases the breathtaking coastlines and recreational
opportunities that draw visitors from California and across the world.
Listen to the numbers from these three California counties: In
Humboldt County, tourism is responsible for more than $330 million
every year. In Santa Cruz County, tourism brings in more than $700
million every year and is one of the county's top industries. Tourism
in San Luis Obispo County produces more than $1 billion annually and is
also the county's largest industry, supporting 15,570 jobs in 2011.
Designating these sites as part of the National Monument will not
only generate more economic activity, it will help attract increased
resources to support the needs of the area, including additional
conservation programs.
The expansion of this National Monument has strong support from a
large coalition of local governments, elected officials, business
owners, landowners, farmers, private individuals, and many conservation
and outdoor industry groups. This impressive grassroots effort shows
how deeply our citizens care about the future of these public lands,
and I am proud to support their hard work and commitment.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill to expand the California
Coastal National Monument and help protect these spectacular lands for
generations to come.
______

By Ms. HEITKAMP:

[[Page S6389]]

S. 1974. A bill to require the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection to amend its regulations relating to qualified mortgages,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, the mid-2000s housing bubble was fueled
by cheap access to credit and unsound, deceptive, and sometimes
fraudulent mortgage lending practices. Borrowers were offered risky,
high-cost loans they could neither afford nor understand by originators
who abandoned traditional underwriting process, accepted loan
applications with little or no documentation, and directly profited
from selling unsustainable loans wholesale. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act contains many necessary and
important reforms to the mortgage origination industry to prevent
future abuses. However, the law is complex and has, unintentionally,
imposed onerous, one-size-fits-all rules on community banks and local
financial institutions that originate mortgages to entrepreneurs and
farmers.
For over a decade, and under supervision of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency, the Federal Home Loan Banks, FHLBanks, have operated a
set of mortgage programs that ensure small financial institutions can
expand access to credit and originate affordable mortgages in their
communities. The Mortgage Partnership Finance program--and the similar
Mortgage Purchase Program--provides members an alternative secondary
mortgage market. A FHLBank purchases a mortgage and manages the
liquidity, interest rate, and prepayment risks while the originating
bank member assumes some credit risk for the loans.
The FHLB mortgage programs' guidelines prior to the passage of the
Dodd-Frank Act often met or exceeded the standards that we now know as
Qualified Mortgage, QM, but the requirements were flexible and not
unduly burdensome. QM status provides originators the legal and
regulatory certainty they need to expand safe access to affordable
mortgages. The FHLBanks have since harmonized their standards with QM,
but some member banks struggle to comply due to the strict
requirements, such as Appendix Q, for assessing a consumer's ability to
repay. For example, the general QM option in some circumstances
prevents community banks and credit unions that originate mortgages to
the self-employed from selling those loans to the FHLBanks. This
outcome is problematic because the FHLBank System is the only avenue
for mortgage resale for many small financial institutions; without the
ability to resell to the FHLBanks, credit availability is constrained
in communities served by these institutions.
Small financial institutions that participate in the FHLBank System
engage in relationship lending--their customers are their neighbors,
their youth sports coaches, their community leaders--and they should
not be required to comply with burdensome regulations designed to clamp
down on unsound mortgage lending practices at large institutions. The
legislation I am introducing today, the Relationship Lending
Preservation Act, would allow these financial institutions to continue
serving farmers and entrepreneurs while ensuring the safety and
soundness of the mortgage origination system. The bill simply requires
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, to establish a distinct
QM option for loans eligible to be purchased by a FHLBank or loans
participating in a credit risk sharing program established by a FHLBank
pursuant to regulations issued by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
This legislation is supported by The Council of FHLBanks and others in
the financial community.
In practice, the bill will provide QM status to loans sold to the
FHLBanks that would have otherwise qualified for the general QM option
except for the income and debt rules. Institutions would still be
required, by FHLBank regulation, to adhere to underwriting and
documentation requirements. The legislation provides parity between the
FHLBanks and Fannie and Freddie, and it mirrors a request by the
FHLBanks to the CFPB to modify QM to accommodate sales to the FHLBanks.
Just as mortgages sold to Fannie and Freddie qualify for QM status,
participants of the FHLBank mortgage programs should be eligible for
QM.
It is important to note that this legislation is narrowly tailored to
benefit truly community financial institutions--the new option is
limited to the commonly accepted definition of community banks, those
institutions with less than $10 billion in assets--and does not
increase systemic risk. Sixty-seven percent of participants in the FHLB
mortgage programs are institutions with less than $500 million in total
assets--these are the smallest of the small lenders. Additionally, the
FHLB mortgage programs require lenders to retain a portion of the
loan's credit risk. This ``skin in the game'' provision ensures
originators are making quality loans that will be repaid; in fact,
loans participating in the FHLB mortgage programs have a 1.47 percent
90-day delinquency rate, less than 2/3 the national average of 2.29
percent.
Community-based financial institutions are central to promoting
growth and economic prosperity in small and rural communities
throughout North Dakota and the Nation. These institutions were not the
cause of the housing and financial crises and should not be subject to
regulations meant for large-scale mortgage-origination institutions.
The Relationship Lending Preservation Act will ensure small financial
institutions can continue to do what they do best: serve their
communities by providing affordable mortgages. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill--community financial institutions, and the families
they serve, are too important for our country's future.
______

By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Boxer, Ms.
Cantwell, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Heitkamp, Ms.
Hirono, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. McCaskill, Mrs. Murray, Mrs.
Shaheen, Ms. Stabenow, and Ms. Warren):
S. 1975. A bill to establish the Sewall-Belmont House National
Historic Site as a unit of the National Park System, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the urgent need to
authorize the Sewall-Belmont House & Museum as part of the National
Park Service.
Sewall-Belmont is a critical piece of our Nation's history. It was
the home of Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, whose
perseverance brought the movement for women's suffrage over the finish
line with the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.
Today it helps tell the story of one of the most important chapters in
our Nation's history by highlighting the political strategies and
techniques of Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, which became
the blueprint for civil rights organizations throughout the 20th
century.
The Sewall-Belmont House was more than a house--it was a home to
great minds and leaders, thanks to the generosity of women like Alva
Belmont. It was a place where women could live, rest, and work without
fear of harassment while they fought boldly for the ballot.
In the 1970s, when they were threatening to tear down this building
to make way for the Senate offices, Pat Schroeder and the women of the
House rallied to save it. Now it is a museum where today's generation
can learn about the courageous women who came before them. This house
has always been the scene of making history, and has always stood for
women's empowerment.
However, today Sewall-Belmont is in dire need of federal support if
it is to continue to serve the public. While the National Woman's Party
has been successfully operating the House and managing its historic
collection, it has been forced to cut back on public tours, research
requests, and educational programs due to the growing capital needs of
managing an aging building.
Sewall-Belmont is a National Historic Landmark, listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, and one of four designations
supported by the Save America's Treasures legislation. The National
Park Service recently completed a feasibility study which concluded
that Sewall-Belmont's deep

[[Page S6390]]

historical significance and unique contribution to our Nation's history
warrants its full inclusion into the National Park Service. This would
not only give it the resources it needs to continue to educate the
public, but would send a powerful message that women's history is an
important part of our Nation's history.
Women fought for decades against great onslaught to secure the right
to vote. One hundred and sixty-seven years ago, in July 1848, the
first-ever women's rights convention was held in Seneca Falls. This
convention was the beginning of one of the greatest social movements of
all time, kicking off the actions of the first generation of
suffragists and making women's suffrage a national topic.
At this convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott stood up
to meet the challenges of their time. They mobilized and they organized
the American women's rights movement. They called for a convention;
they called for action; they made history; they changed history. And
that revolution keeps on going.
In the 20th century, Alice Paul took the lead in the women's suffrage
movement. In 1916, she formed the National Woman's Party which would
fight for suffrage until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was
finally enacted in 1920--long overdue.
Alice Paul was a groundbreaker and a changemaker, risking arrest and
inhumane treatment so the women of America could be part of a true
democracy. With their banners and sashes, Alice Paul led the Iron Jawed
Angels marching on Washington to President Wilson's White House. Her
Silent Sentinels stood in rain, sleet, and snow as daily reminders of
America's conscience. They called for women's right to vote at a time
when women didn't have a voice. Their cause captivated the nation! With
each step they took, they marched toward a future where women weren't
just able to vote, but were on the ballot.
Wouldn't Alice Paul be so proud to see twenty women in the United
States Senate? I'm so proud to be one of them. The women of the Senate
are changing history by changing the tide and changing the tone. When I
arrived in the Senate in 1986, I was the first Democratic woman elected
in her own right, and the sixteenth woman to serve. There are more
women serving right this minute, today--fourteen Democrats and six
Republicans--than had served in all of American history when I arrived.
I am so proud of all of the accomplishments made by the women of the
Senate. But we didn't get here by ourselves. Not a single one of us
would be here without Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party. That
is why it is so important that we not only preserve the place where
they fought for women's full inclusion in society, the Sewall-Belmont
House, but elevate it to its rightful spot among our Nation's most
important national treasures.
There are very few sites in the National Park System that celebrate
women's history. I am proud that Maryland is home to one of those sites
with the newly authorized Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National
Historical Park in Cambridge. But it is not enough.
Today, women have the right to vote and the right to be on the
ballot. But we have so much more to accomplish to become fully equal
members of society. It is critical that we remind today's generation of
women and men of this long and important history so that we can keep in
mind the lessons learned from these movements as we march toward full
equality. As I serve my last term in the United States Senate, there is
nothing more important to me than preserving the legacy of this fight.
______

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. Boozman):
S. 1982. A bill to authorize a Wall of Remembrance as part of the
Korean War Veterans Memorial and to allow certain private contributions
to fund the Wall of Remembrance; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Korean War
Veterans Memorial and the legislation I am introducing along with
Senator Boozman. This legislation authorizes the addition of a ``Wall
of Remembrance'' to the Korean War Veterans Memorial, without the use
of public funds.
The Korean War, often referred to as the ``Forgotten War,'' began on
June 25, 1950. During the three-year course of the war, some 5.7
million Americans were called to serve, and by the time the Korean
Armistice Agreement was signed in July 1953, more than 36,000 Americans
sacrificed their lives, 103,284 were wounded, 7,140 were captured, and
664 were missing.
To honor the Americans who served during the Korean War, on October
28, 1986, Congress passed H.R. 2005, Public Law 99-572, authorizing the
construction of the Korean War Veterans Memorial located in West
Potomac Park, southeast of the Lincoln Memorial and just south of the
Reflecting Pool on the National Mall. For those of you who have visited
this memorial, it is quite a moving experience. But unlike some other
memorials, it does not list the names of those who died while serving
their country.
My legislation authorizes the addition of a Wall of Remembrance to
the existing Korean War Veterans Memorial. The Wall of Remembrance
would list the names of members of the Armed Forces of the United
States who died in theater in the Korean War, as well as the number of
service members who were wounded in action, are listed as missing in
action, or who were prisoners of war during the Korean War. The Wall
would also list the number of members of the Korean Augmentation to the
U.S. Army, the Republic of Korean Armed Forces, and other nations of
the United Nations Command who were killed in action, wounded in
action, are listed as missing in action, or were prisoners of war.
Korean War Veterans Memorials that display the names of a nation's
fallen soldiers can be found across the globe. Authorizing a Wall of
Remembrance here in the United States is just one way we can help
ensure that those who died while serving our country in the ``Forgotten
War'' are no longer forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this legislation.
______

By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 1983. A bill to authorize the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians Water Rights Settlement, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Pechanga
Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act of 2013.
This legislation will implement a settlement concerning the water
rights of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, who have been
engaged for several decades in a struggle for recognition and
protection of their federally reserved groundwater rights.
Since 1951, the Pechanga have been involved in litigation initiated
by the United States concerning water rights in the Santa Margarita
watershed. The Pechanga's interest has been in protecting their
groundwater supplies, which are shared with municipal developments in
the San Diego region. Beginning in 2006, the Pechanga worked with local
water districts to negotiate a cooperative solution and put an end to
their dispute.
The Pechanga Settlement Agreement is a comprehensive agreement
negotiated among the Pechanga, the United States on their behalf, and
several California water districts, including the Rancho California
Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and the Metropolitan
Water District. The Settlement recognizes the Pechanga's tribal water
right to 4994 acre-feet of water per year and outlines a series of
measures to guarantee this amount. It is a watershed wide solution that
protects the rights of the Pechanga while providing greater certainty
and resources to the management of the basin's water supplies.
I am pleased to be joined by Senator Feinstein in introducing this
legislation. Our bill not only provides the Pechanga with long-overdue
assurances of their water rights, but also exemplifies all the good
that can be accomplished when parties put aside their differences and
come to the table to negotiate collaborative solutions.
______

By Mr. REID:
S. 1986. A bill to provide for a land conveyance in the State of
Nevada; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

[[Page S6391]]

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1986

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Moapa Band of Paiutes Land
Conveyance Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Moapa
River Reservation Expansion'', dated August 5, 2015, and on
file and available for public inspection in the appropriate
offices of the Bureau of Land Management.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Moapa Band of
Paiutes.

SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF LAND TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE MOAPA
BAND OF PAIUTES.

(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
land described in subsection (b) shall be--
(1) held in trust by the United States for the benefit of
the Tribe; and
(2) part of the reservation of the Tribe.
(b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) is the approximately 25,977 acres of land
administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau
of Reclamation as generally depicted on the map as
``Reservation Expansion Land''.
(c) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete a survey
of the boundary lines to establish the boundaries of the land
taken into trust under subsection (a).
(d) Gaming.--Land taken into trust under this section shall
not be eligible, or considered to have been taken into trust,
for class II gaming or class III gaming (as those terms are
defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25
U.S.C. 2703)).

SEC. 4. TRIBAL FEE LAND TO BE HELD IN TRUST.

(a) In General.--All right, title, and interest of the
Tribe in and to the land described in subsection (b) shall
be--
(1) held in trust by the United States for the benefit of
the Tribe; and
(2) part of the reservation of the Tribe.
(b) Description of the Land.--The land referred to in
subsection (a) is the approximately 88 acres of land held in
fee by the Tribe as generally depicted on the map as ``Fee
Into Trust Lands''.
(c) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete a survey
of the boundary lines to establish the boundaries of the land
taken into trust under subsection (a).
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 1991. A bill to eliminate the sunset date for the Choice Program
of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand eligibility for such
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this Friday marks 1 year since the
Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability and
Transparency Act was signed into law by President Obama. This
bipartisan legislation was intended to address the nationwide scandal
involving the death of at least 40 veterans who had been waiting for
weeks, months, and even years for necessary care from the VA.
Ultimately, we learned that senior VA officials purposely denied care
and lied about it to obtain financial bonuses. We are still cleaning-up
the aftermath of this scandal and Congress' work continues today.
The hallmark of that law is the VA Choice Card, which for the first
time allows veterans who can't make an appointment in a reasonable time
frame or who live far from a VA medical facility, to see the doctor of
their choice to get the care they need. But, with all the bureaucratic
hoops that the VA has required veterans to jump through to use the
Choice Card since that law's enactment and the lack of information the
VA has provided veterans and relevant providers on how to get and use
the Card, the VA has clearly been reluctant to expanding choice for
veterans. Even after a year, I continue to get e-mails, letters and
phone calls from veterans and their caregivers who are extremely
frustrated with the inability to use the VA Choice Card.
As I said at the time, last year's bill was meant as a beginning, not
an end, to addressing inadequate care for our veterans. While the
current law authorizes a three-year pilot program to begin
implementation of the VA Choice Card, the year that has passed since
its enactment has shown is that there is overwhelming demand for
veterans to have the same freedom of choice for their health care that
military and civilian retirees have.
I have long advocated for our veterans to have the flexibility to
choose where and when they receive the care they have earned. And the
Permanent VA Choice Card Act that I am introducing today moves us in
that direction.
The Permanent VA Choice Card Act makes the current 3-year pilot
program for the VA Choice Card permanent. This would help remove
uncertainty both within the VA, among providers, and especially among
our disabled veterans that this program is here to stay.
Also, the Permanent VA Choice Card Act would expand eligibility for
the Choice Card. Any service-connected veteran enrolled through the VA
should have access to this level of choice. It would do so by removing
the requirement that a qualified veteran live more than 40 miles from a
VA facility or have to wait 30 days for an appointment.
It is clear our veterans are in need of care and are not able to
receive it. More than a year after the VA scandal and a year since the
Choice Act was signed into law, wait-times are still too long and in
some facilities are even longer than they were a year ago. The VA has
made it challenging for those with the VA Choice Card to make
appointments, get follow-ups, and to see specialists near their homes.
By enacting the Permanent VA Choice Card Act, we will make sure that no
veteran should be denied needed care due to wait times or distance to a
VA facility.
______

By Mr. NELSON:
S. 1999. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating to act, without liability for certain
damages, to prevent and respond to the threat of damage from pollution
of the sea by crude oil, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, tourists flock every year to enjoy the
inviting waters of the South Florida--sunbathing on Miami Beach,
boating in Biscayne Bay National Park, snorkeling on treasured coral
reefs of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. And you might take
a souvenir picture at the Southernmost Point in Key West. Standing
there, you are closer to Cuba--90 miles away--than you are to Miami,
which is 160 miles away.
In 1977, the U.S. negotiated a Maritime Boundary with Cuba for
fisheries and other continental shelf activities, like oil exploration,
roughly halfway between our nations--or 45 miles from the Southernmost
Point in Key West. Since 2005, several oil companies have leased blocks
in Cuban waters south of that line to drill for oil. Can you imagine
the damage to our environment and our economy if oil was to coat two
national parks, a national marine sanctuary, a national wildlife
refuge, iconic coral reefs, world-class fisheries, and beloved beaches?
It would be catastrophic. In fact, the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary was created specifically to protect against threats like an
oil spill.
In 2012, four companies tried and failed to find oil. But recently,
an Angolan company has ramped up plans to drill in late 2016. We are
simply not prepared to protect U.S. interests from an oil spill off
Cuba. The loop current that saved South Florida from the brunt of the
damage from Deepwater Horizon becomes the Florida current as it runs
between the Keys and Cuba and then those waters enter the Gulf Stream
hugging the coast of Florida and heading north along the eastern
seaboard. An oil spill in Cuban waters would almost certainly follow
that same path.
For a decade, I have fought tooth and nail to protect our environment
and economy from a Cuban spill. Given the news that drilling will
resume next year, it is imperative that the agencies we rely on to
prevent and respond to oil spills are prepared. And even though Cuba is
the closest threat, an oil spill off Mexico, Bahamas, or Jamaica could
enter U.S. waters. So today, I am introducing the Caribbean Oil Spill
Intervention, Prevention, and Preparedness Act--a comprehensive
framework to protect U.S. interests from foreign oil spills.
The bill would strengthen the authority of the Coast Guard to
intervene

[[Page S6392]]

and make sure that we have up-to-date accurate information about the
ocean currents off of Cuba's coast so that we know where an oil spill
might go. It requires the relevant Federal agencies to negotiate oil
pollution prevention and response with countries bordering the Gulf of
Mexico and Straits of Florida especially to protect our National Marine
Sanctuaries like the Florida Keys. The bill ensures we have a plan to
protect coral reef ecosystems all through the Straits of Florida--
because domestic fisheries rely on healthy corals. Finally, it requires
any oil company that wants to drill in both U.S. waters and Cuban
waters to show they have the resources and plans to adequately prepare
for a worst-case oil spill in both areas.
These common-sense provisions should have broad support. I urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
______

By Mr. CORNYN:
S. 2002. A bill to strengthen our mental health system and improve
public safety; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 2002

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Mental
Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--MENTAL HEALTH AND SAFE COMMUNITIES

Sec. 101. Law enforcement grants for crisis intervention
teams, mental health purposes, and fixing the
background check system.
Sec. 102. Assisted outpatient treatment programs.
Sec. 103. Federal drug and mental health courts.
Sec. 104. Mental health in the judicial system.
Sec. 105. Forensic assertive community treatment
initiatives.
Sec. 106. Assistance for individuals transitioning out of
systems.
Sec. 107. Co-occurring substance abuse and mental health
challenges in drug courts.
Sec. 108. Mental health training for Federal uniformed
services.
Sec. 109. Advancing mental health as part of offender
reentry.
Sec. 110. School mental health crisis intervention teams.
Sec. 111. Active-shooter training for law enforcement.
Sec. 112. Co-occurring substance abuse and mental health
challenges in residential substance abuse treatment
programs.
Sec. 113. Mental health and drug treatment alternatives to
incarceration programs.
Sec. 114. National criminal justice and mental health
training and technical assistance.
Sec. 115. Improving Department of Justice data collection
on mental illness involved in crime.
Sec. 116. Reports on the number of mentally ill offenders
in prison.

TITLE II--COMPREHENSIVE JUSTICE AND MENTAL HEALTH ACT

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings.
Sec. 203. Sequential intercept model.
Sec. 204. Veterans treatment courts.
Sec. 205. Prison and jails.
Sec. 206. Allowable uses.
Sec. 207. Law enforcement training.
Sec. 208. Federal law enforcement training.
Sec. 209. GAO report.
Sec. 210. Evidence based practices.
Sec. 211. Transparency, program accountability, and
enhancement of local authority.
Sec. 212. Grant accountability.

TITLE III--NICS REAUTHORIZATION AND NICS IMPROVEMENT

Sec. 301. Reauthorization of NICS.
Sec. 302. Definitions relating to mental health.
Sec. 303. Incentives for State compliance with NICS mental
health record requirements.
Sec. 304. Protecting the second amendment rights of
veterans.
Sec. 305. Applicability of amendments.
Sec. 306. Clarification that Federal court information is
to be made available to the national instant criminal
background check system.

TITLE IV--REAUTHORIZATIONS AND OFFSET

Sec. 401. Reauthorization of appropriations.
Sec. 402. Offset.

TITLE I--MENTAL HEALTH AND SAFE COMMUNITIES

SEC. 101. LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS FOR CRISIS INTERVENTION
TEAMS, MENTAL HEALTH PURPOSES, AND FIXING THE
BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

(a) Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program.--Section 501(a)(1) of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751(a)(1))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(H) Mental health programs and related law enforcement
and corrections programs, including behavioral programs and
crisis intervention teams.
``(I) Achieving compliance with the mental health records
requirements of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-180; 121 Stat. 2259).''.
(b) Community Oriented Policing Services Program.--Section
1701(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (16), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (17) as paragraph (21);
(3) by inserting after paragraph (16) the following:
``(17) to provide specialized training to law enforcement
officers to--
``(A) recognize individuals who have a mental illness; and
``(B) properly interact with individuals who have a mental
illness, including strategies for verbal de-escalation of
crises;
``(18) to establish collaborative programs that enhance the
ability of law enforcement agencies to address the mental
health, behavioral, and substance abuse problems of
individuals encountered by law enforcement officers in the
line of duty;
``(19) to provide specialized training to corrections
officers to recognize individuals who have a mental illness;
``(20) to enhance the ability of corrections officers to
address the mental health of individuals under the care and
custody of jails and prisons, including specialized training
and strategies for verbal de-escalation of crises; and''; and
(4) in paragraph (21), as redesignated, by striking
``through (16)'' and inserting ``through (20)''.
(c) Modifications to the Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response Grants.--Section 34(a)(1)(B) of the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C.
2229a(a)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``and to provide specialized training
to paramedics, emergency medical services workers, and other
first responders to recognize individuals who have mental
illness and how to properly intervene with individuals with
mental illness, including strategies for verbal de-escalation
of crises''.

SEC. 102. ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PROGRAMS.

Section 2201 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ii) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The
Attorney General'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, or court-ordered assisted outpatient
treatment when the court has determined such treatment to be
necessary''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment.--The
term `court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment' means a
program through which a court may order a treatment plan for
an eligible patient that--
``(A) requires such patient to obtain outpatient mental
health treatment while the patient is living in a community;
and
``(B) is designed to improve access and adherence by such
patient to intensive behavioral health services in order to--

[[Page S6393]]

``(i) avert relapse, repeated hospitalizations, arrest,
incarceration, suicide, property destruction, and violent
behavior; and
``(ii) provide such patient with the opportunity to live in
a less restrictive alternative to incarceration or
involuntary hospitalization.
``(2) Eligible patient.--The term `eligible patient' means
an adult, mentally ill person who, as determined by a court--
``(A) has a history of violence, incarceration, or
medically unnecessary hospitalizations;
``(B) without supervision and treatment, may be a danger to
self or others in the community;
``(C) is substantially unlikely to voluntarily participate
in treatment;
``(D) may be unable, for reasons other than indigence, to
provide for any of his or her basic needs, such as food,
clothing, shelter, health, or safety;
``(E) has a history of mental illness or condition that is
likely to substantially deteriorate if the patient is not
provided with timely treatment; or
``(F) due to mental illness, lacks capacity to fully
understand or lacks judgment to make informed decisions
regarding his or her need for treatment, care, or
supervision.''.

SEC. 103. FEDERAL DRUG AND MENTAL HEALTH COURTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``eligible offender'' means a person who--
(A)(i) previously or currently has been diagnosed by a
qualified mental health professional as having a mental
illness, mental retardation, or co-occurring mental illness
and substance abuse disorders; or
(ii) manifests obvious signs of mental illness, mental
retardation, or co-occurring mental illness and substance
abuse disorders during arrest or confinement or before any
court; and
(B) is determined by a judge to be eligible.
(2) the term ``mental illness'' means a diagnosable mental,
behavioral, or emotional disorder--
(A) of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria
within the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the
American Psychiatric Association; and
(B) that has resulted in functional impairment that
substantially interferes with or limits 1 or more major life
activities.
(b) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
establish a pilot program to determine the effectiveness of
diverting eligible offenders from Federal prosecution,
Federal probation, or a Bureau of Prisons facility, and
placing such eligible offenders in drug or mental health
courts.
(c) Program Specifications.--The pilot program established
under subsection (b) shall involve--
(1) continuing judicial supervision, including periodic
review, of program participants who have a substance abuse
problem or mental illness; and
(2) the integrated administration of services and
sanctions, which shall include--
(A) mandatory periodic testing, as appropriate, for the use
of controlled substances or other addictive substances during
any period of supervised release or probation for each
program participant;
(B) substance abuse treatment for each program participant
who requires such services;
(C) diversion, probation, or other supervised release with
the possibility of prosecution, confinement, or incarceration
based on noncompliance with program requirements or failure
to show satisfactory progress;
(D) programmatic offender management, including case
management, and aftercare services, such as relapse
prevention, health care, education, vocational training, job
placement, housing placement, and child care or other family
support services for each program participant who requires
such services;
(E) outpatient or inpatient mental health treatment, as
ordered by the court, that carries with it the possibility of
dismissal of charges or reduced sentencing upon successful
completion of such treatment;
(F) centralized case management, including--
(i) the consolidation of all cases, including violations of
probations, of the program participant; and
(ii) coordination of all mental health treatment plans and
social services, including life skills and vocational
training, housing and job placement, education, health care,
and relapse prevention for each program participant who
requires such services; and
(G) continuing supervision of treatment plan compliance by
the program participant for a term not to exceed the maximum
allowable sentence or probation period for the charged or
relevant offense and, to the extent practicable, continuity
of psychiatric care at the end of the supervised period.
(d) Implementation; Duration.--The pilot program
established under subsection (b) shall be conducted--
(1) in not less than 1 United States judicial district,
designated by the Attorney General in consultation with the
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, as appropriate for the pilot program; and
(2) during fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2020.
(e) Criteria for Designation.--Before making a designation
under subsection (d)(1), the Attorney General shall--
(1) obtain the approval, in writing, of the United States
Attorney for the United States judicial district being
designated;
(2) obtain the approval, in writing, of the chief judge for
the United States judicial district being designated; and
(3) determine that the United States judicial district
being designated has adequate behavioral health systems for
treatment, including substance abuse and mental health
treatment.
(f) Assistance From Other Federal Entities.--The
Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the
United States Probation Offices shall provide such assistance
and carry out such functions as the Attorney General may
request in monitoring, supervising, providing services to,
and evaluating eligible offenders placed in a drug or mental
health court under this section.
(g) Reports.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Director of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, shall monitor the drug and mental health
courts under this section, and shall submit a report to
Congress on the outcomes of the program at the end of the
period described in subsection (d)(2).

SEC. 104. MENTAL HEALTH IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

Part V of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 3796ii et seq.) is amended by
inserting at the end the following:

``SEC. 2209. MENTAL HEALTH RESPONSES IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

``(a) Pretrial Screening and Supervision.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to
States, units of local government, territories, Indian
Tribes, nonprofit agencies, or any combination thereof, to
develop, implement, or expand pretrial services programs to
improve the identification and outcomes of individuals with
mental illness.
``(2) Allowable uses.--Grants awarded under this subsection
may be may be used for--
``(A) universal behavioral health needs and risk screening
of defendants, including verification of interview
information, mental health evaluation, and criminal history
screening;
``(B) assessment of risk of pretrial misconduct through
objective, statistically validated means, and presentation to
the court of recommendations based on such assessment,
including services that will reduce the risk of pre-trial
misconduct;
``(C) follow-up review of defendants unable to meet the
conditions of release;
``(D) evaluation of process and results of pre-trial
service programs;
``(E) supervision of defendants who are on pretrial
release, including reminders to defendants of scheduled court
dates;
``(F) reporting on process and results of pretrial services
programs to relevant public and private mental health
stakeholders; and
``(G) data collection and analysis necessary to make
available information required for assessment of risk.
``(b) Behavioral Health Assessments and Intervention.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to
States, units of local government, territories, Indian
Tribes, nonprofit agencies, or any combination thereof, to
develop, implement, or expand a behavioral health screening
and assessment program framework for State or local criminal
justice systems.
``(2) Allowable uses.--Grants awarded under this subsection
may be used for--
``(A) promotion of the use of validated assessment tools to
gauge the criminogenic risk, substance abuse needs, and
mental health needs of individuals;
``(B) initiatives to match the risk factors and needs of
individuals to programs and practices associated with
research-based, positive outcomes;
``(C) implementing methods for identifying and treating
individuals who are most likely to benefit from coordinated
supervision and treatment strategies, and identifying
individuals who can do well with fewer interventions; and
``(D) collaborative decision making among system leaders,
including the relevant criminal justice agencies, mental
health systems, judicial systems, and substance abuse
systems, for determining how treatment and intensive
supervision services should be allocated in order to maximize
benefits, and developing and utilizing capacity accordingly.
``(c) Restrictions on Use of Grant Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A State, unit of local government,
territory, Indian Tribe, or nonprofit agency that receives a
grant under this section shall, in accordance with subsection
(b)(2), use grant funds for the expenses of a treatment
program, including--
``(A) salaries, personnel costs, equipment costs, and other
costs directly related to the operation of the program,
including costs relating to enforcement;
``(B) payments for treatment providers that are approved by
the State or Indian Tribe and licensed, if necessary, to
provide needed treatment to program participants, including
aftercare supervision, vocational training, education, and
job placement; and
``(C) payments to public and nonprofit private entities
that are approved by the State or Indian Tribe and licensed,
if necessary, to

[[Page S6394]]

provide alcohol and drug addiction treatment to offenders
participating in the program.
``(d) Supplement of Non-Federal Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Grants awarded under this section shall
be used to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds
that would otherwise be available for programs described in
this section.
``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of a grant made
under this section may not exceed 50 percent of the total
costs of the program described in an application under
subsection (e).
``(e) Applications.--To request a grant under this section,
a State, unit of local government, territory, Indian Tribe,
or nonprofit agency shall submit an application to the
Attorney General in such form and containing such information
as the Attorney General may reasonably require.
``(f) Geographic Distribution.--The Attorney General shall
ensure that, to the extent practicable, the distribution of
grants under this section is equitable and includes--
``(1) each State; and
``(2) a unit of local government, territory, Indian Tribe,
or nonprofit agency--
``(A) in each State; and
``(B) in rural, suburban, Tribal, and urban jurisdictions.
``(g) Reports and Evaluations.--For each fiscal year, each
grantee under this section during that fiscal year shall
submit to the Attorney General a report on the effectiveness
of activities carried out using such grant. Each report shall
include an evaluation in such form and containing such
information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.
The Attorney General shall specify the dates on which such
reports shall be submitted.
``(h) Accountability.--Grants awarded under this section
shall be subject to the following accountability provisions:
``(1) Audit requirement.--
``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `unresolved
audit finding' means a finding in the final audit report of
the Inspector General of the Department of Justice under
subparagraph (C) that the audited grantee has used grant
funds for an unauthorized expenditure or otherwise
unallowable cost that is not closed or resolved within 1 year
after the date on which final audit report is issued.
``(B) Audits.--Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment of this section, and in each
fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice shall conduct audits of grantees under
this section to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds by
grantees. The Inspector General shall determine the
appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year.
``(C) Final audit report.--The Inspector General of the
Department of Justice shall submit a final report on each
audit conducted under subparagraph (B).
``(D) Mandatory exclusion.--Grantees under this section
about which there is an unresolved audit finding shall not be
eligible to receive a grant under this section during the 2
fiscal years beginning after the end of the 1-year period
described in subparagraph (A).
``(E) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to applicants that did
not have an unresolved audit finding during the 3 fiscal
years before submitting an application for a grant under this
section.
``(F) Reimbursement.--If an entity receives a grant under
this section during the 2-fiscal-year period during which the
entity is prohibited from receiving grants under subparagraph
(D), the Attorney General shall--
``(i) deposit an amount equal to the amount of the grant
that was improperly awarded to the grantee into the General
Fund of the Treasury; and
``(ii) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment under
clause (i) from the grantee that was erroneously awarded
grant funds.
``(2) Nonprofit agency requirements.--
``(A) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph and the
grant program under this section, the term `nonprofit agency'
means an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3))
and is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(a)).
``(B) Prohibition.--The Attorney General may not award a
grant under this section to a nonprofit agency that holds
money in an offshore account for the purpose of avoiding
paying the tax described in section 511(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 511(a)).
``(C) Disclosure.--Each nonprofit agency that is awarded a
grant under this section and uses the procedures prescribed
in regulations to create a rebuttable presumption of
reasonableness for the compensation of its officers,
directors, trustees, and key employees, shall disclose to the
Attorney General, in the application for the grant, the
process for determining such compensation, including the
independent persons involved in reviewing and approving such
compensation, the comparability data used, and
contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and
decision. Upon request, the Attorney General shall make the
information disclosed under this subparagraph available for
public inspection.
``(3) Conference expenditures.--
``(A) Limitation.--Not more than $20,000 of the amounts
made available to the Department of Justice to carry out this
section may be used by the Attorney General, or by any
individual or entity awarded a grant under this section to
host, or make any expenditures relating to, a conference
unless the Deputy Attorney General provides prior written
authorization that the funds may be expended to host the
conference or make such expenditure.
``(B) Written approval.--Written approval under
subparagraph (A) shall include a written estimate of all
costs associated with the conference, including the cost of
all food, beverages, audio-visual equipment, honoraria for
speakers, and entertainment.
``(C) Report.--The Deputy Attorney General shall submit an
annual report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives on all conference expenditures approved under
this paragraph.
``(4) Annual certification.--Beginning in the first fiscal
year beginning after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Attorney General shall submit to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives an annual certification--
``(A) indicating whether--
``(i) all final audit reports issued by the Office of the
Inspector General under paragraph (1) have been completed and
reviewed by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or
Director;
``(ii) all mandatory exclusions required under paragraph
(1)(D) have been issued; and
``(iii) any reimbursements required under paragraph (1)(F)
have been made; and
``(B) that includes a list of any grantees excluded under
paragraph (1)(D) from the previous year.
``(i) Preventing Duplicative Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Before the Attorney General awards a
grant to an applicant under this section, the Attorney
General shall compare the possible grant with any other
grants awarded to the applicant under this Act to determine
whether the grants are for the same purpose.
``(2) Report.--If the Attorney General awards multiple
grants to the same applicant for the same purpose, the
Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives a report that includes--
``(A) a list of all duplicate grants awarded, including the
total dollar amount of any such grants awarded; and
``(B) the reason the Attorney General awarded the duplicate
grants.''.

SEC. 105. FORENSIC ASSERTIVE COMMUNITY TREATMENT INITIATIVES.

Section 2991 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa) is amended by inserting after
subsection (k), as added by section 205, the following:
``(l) Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT)
Initiative Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may make grants to
States, units of local government, territories, Indian
Tribes, nonprofit agencies, or any combination thereof, to
develop, implement, or expand Assertive Community Treatment
initiatives to develop forensic assertive community treatment
(referred to in this subsection as `FACT') programs that
provide high intensity services in the community for
individuals with mental illness with involvement in the
criminal justice system to prevent future incarcerations.
``(2) Allowable uses.--Grant funds awarded under this
subsection may be used for--
``(A) multidisciplinary team initiatives for individuals
with mental illnesses with criminal justice involvement that
addresses criminal justice involvement as part of treatment
protocols;
``(B) FACT initiatives that involve mental health
professionals, criminal justice agencies, chemical dependency
specialists, nurses, psychiatrists, vocational specialists,
forensic peer specialists, forensic specialists, and
dedicated administrative support staff who work together to
provide recovery oriented, 24/7 wraparound services;
``(C) services such as integrated evidence-based practices
for the treatment of co-occurring mental health and
substance-related disorders, assertive outreach and
engagement, community-based service provision at
participants' residence or in the community, psychiatric
rehabilitation, recovery oriented services, services to
address criminogenic risk factors, and community tenure;
``(D) payments for treatment providers that are approved by
the State or Indian Tribe and licensed, if necessary, to
provide needed treatment to eligible offenders participating
in the program, including behavioral health services and
aftercare supervision; and
``(E) training for all FACT teams to promote high-fidelity
practice principles and technical assistance to support
effective and continuing integration with criminal justice
agency partners.
``(3) Supplement and not supplant.--Grants made under this
subsection shall be used to supplement, and not supplant,
non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for
programs described in this subsection.
``(4) Applications.--To request a grant under this
subsection, a State, unit of local government, territory,
Indian Tribe, or nonprofit agency shall submit an application
to

[[Page S6395]]

the Attorney General in such form and containing such
information as the Attorney General may reasonably
require.''.

SEC. 106. ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS TRANSITIONING OUT OF
SYSTEMS.

Section 2976(f) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) provide mental health treatment and transitional
services for those with mental illnesses or with co-occurring
disorders, including housing placement or assistance; and''.

SEC. 107. CO-OCCURRING SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH
CHALLENGES IN DRUG COURTS.

Part EE of title I of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797u et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 2951(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 3797u(a)(1)), by
inserting ``, including co-occurring substance abuse and
mental health problems,'' after ``problems''; and
(2) in section 2959(a) (42 U.S.C. 3797u-8(a)), by inserting
``, including training for drug court personnel and officials
on identifying and addressing co-occurring substance abuse
and mental health problems'' after ``part''.

SEC. 108. MENTAL HEALTH TRAINING FOR FEDERAL UNIFORMED
SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, and the Secretary of Commerce shall provide
the following to each of the uniformed services (as that term
is defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code)
under their direction:
(1) Training programs.--Programs that offer specialized and
comprehensive training in procedures to identify and respond
appropriately to incidents in which the unique needs of
individuals with mental illnesses are involved.
(2) Improved technology.--Computerized information systems
or technological improvements to provide timely information
to Federal law enforcement personnel, other branches of the
uniformed services, and criminal justice system personnel to
improve the Federal response to mentally ill individuals.
(3) Cooperative programs.--The establishment and expansion
of cooperative efforts to promote public safety through the
use of effective intervention with respect to mentally ill
individuals encountered by members of the uniformed services.

SEC. 109. ADVANCING MENTAL HEALTH AS PART OF OFFENDER
REENTRY.

(a) Reentry Demonstration Projects.--Section 2976(f) of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w(f)), as amended by section 106, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(C), by inserting ``mental health
services,'' before ``drug treatment''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) target offenders with histories of homelessness,
substance abuse, or mental illness, including a prerelease
assessment of the housing status of the offender and
behavioral health needs of the offender with clear
coordination with mental health, substance abuse, and
homelessness services systems to achieve stable and permanent
housing outcomes with appropriate support service.''.
(b) Mentoring Grants.--Section 211(b)(2) of the Second
Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17531(b)(2)) is amended by
inserting ``, including mental health care'' after
``community''.

SEC. 110. SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAMS.

Section 2701 of title I of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797a(b)) is amended by--
(1) redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5)
and (6), respectively; and
(2) inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) the development and operation of crisis intervention
teams that may include coordination with law enforcement
agencies and specialized training for school officials in
responding to mental health crises.''.

SEC. 111. ACTIVE-SHOOTER TRAINING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

The Attorney General, as part of the Preventing Violence
Against Law Enforcement and Ensuring Officer Resilience and
Survivability Initiative (VALOR) of the Department of
Justice, may provide safety training and technical assistance
to local law enforcement agencies, including active-shooter
response training.

SEC. 112. CO-OCCURRING SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH
CHALLENGES IN RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT PROGRAMS.

Section 1901(a) of title I of Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ff(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) developing and implementing specialized residential
substance abuse treatment programs that identify and provide
appropriate treatment to inmates with co-occurring mental
health and substance abuse disorders or challenges.''.

SEC. 113. MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TO
INCARCERATION PROGRAMS.

Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended by striking part
CC and inserting the following:

``PART CC--MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TO
INCARCERATION PROGRAMS

``SEC. 2901. MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TO
INCARCERATION PROGRAMS.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `eligible entity' means a State, unit of
local government, Indian tribe, or nonprofit organization;
and
``(2) the term `eligible participant' means an individual
who--
``(A) comes into contact with the criminal justice system
or is charged with an offense;
``(B) has a history of or a current--
``(i) substance use disorder;
``(ii) mental illness; or
``(iii) co-occurring mental illness and substance use
disorders; and
``(C) has been approved for participation in a program
funded under this section by, the relevant law enforcement
agency, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, probation
official, corrections official, judge, representative of a
mental health agency, or representative of a substance abuse
agency.
``(b) Program Authorized.--The Attorney General may make
grants to eligible entities to develop, implement, or expand
a treatment alternative to incarceration program for eligible
participants, including--
``(1) pre-booking treatment alternative to incarceration
programs, including--
``(A) law enforcement training on substance use disorders,
mental illness, and co-occurring mental illness and substance
use disorders;
``(B) receiving centers as alternatives to incarceration of
eligible participants;
``(C) specialized response units for calls related to
substance use disorders, mental illness, or co-occurring
mental illness and substance use disorders; and
``(D) other arrest and pre-booking treatment alternatives
to incarceration models; or
``(2) post-booking treatment alternative to incarceration
programs, including--
``(A) specialized clinical case management;
``(B) pre-trial services related to substances use
disorders, mental illness, and co-occurring mental illness
and substance use disorders;
``(C) prosecutor and defender based programs;
``(D) specialized probation;
``(E) treatment and rehabilitation programs; and
``(F) problem-solving courts, including mental health
courts, drug courts, co-occuring mental health and substance
abuse courts, DWI courts, and veterans treatment courts.
``(c) Application.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Attorney General--
``(A) that meets the criteria under paragraph (2); and
``(B) at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Attorney General may require.
``(2) Criteria.--An eligible entity, in submitting an
application under paragraph (1), shall--
``(A) provide extensive evidence of collaboration with
State and local government agencies overseeing health,
community corrections, courts, prosecution, substance abuse,
mental health, victims services, and employment services, and
with local law enforcement agencies; and
``(B) demonstrate consultation with the Single State
Authority for Substance Abuse;
``(C) demonstrate that evidence-based treatment practices
will be utilized; and
``(D) demonstrate that evidenced-based screening and
assessment tools will be used to place participants in the
treatment alternative to incarceration program.
``(d) Requirements.--Each eligible entity awarded a grant
for a treatment alternative to incarceration program under
this section shall--
``(1) determine the terms and conditions of participation
in the program by eligible participants, taking into
consideration the collateral consequences of an arrest,
prosecution or criminal conviction;
``(2) ensure that each substance abuse and mental health
treatment component is licensed and qualified by the relevant
jurisdiction;
``(3) for programs described in subsection (b)(2), organize
an enforcement unit comprised of appropriately trained law
enforcement professionals under the supervision of the State,
Tribal, or local criminal justice agency involved, the duties
of which shall include--
``(A) the verification of addresses and other contacts of
each eligible participant who participates or desires to
participate in the program; and
``(B) if necessary, the location, apprehension, arrest, and
return to court of an eligible participant in the program who
has absconded from the facility of a treatment provider or
has otherwise significantly violated the terms and conditions
of the program, consistent with Federal and State
confidentiality requirements;
``(4) notify the relevant criminal justice entity if any
eligible participant in the program absconds from the
facility of the treatment provider or otherwise violates the

[[Page S6396]]

terms and conditions of the program, consistent with Federal
and State confidentiality requirements;
``(5) submit periodic reports on the progress of treatment
or other measured outcomes from participation in the program
of each eligible offender participating in the program to the
relevant State, Tribal, or local criminal justice agency,
including mental health courts, drug courts, co-occurring
mental health and substance abuse courts, DWI courts, and
veterans treatment courts;
``(6) describe the evidence-based methodology and outcome
measurements that will be used to evaluate the program, and
specifically explain how such measurements will provide valid
measures of the impact of the program; and
``(7) describe how the program could be broadly replicated
if demonstrated to be effective.
``(e) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant
received under this section for expenses of a treatment
alternative to incarceration program, including--
``(1) salaries, personnel costs, equipment costs, and other
costs directly related to the operation of the program,
including the enforcement unit;
``(2) payments for treatment providers that are approved by
the relevant State or Tribal jurisdiction and licensed, if
necessary, to provide needed treatment to eligible offenders
participating in the program, including aftercare
supervision, vocational training, education, and job
placement; and
``(3) payments to public and nonprofit private entities
that are approved by the State or Tribal jurisdiction and
licensed, if necessary, to provide alcohol and drug addiction
treatment to eligible offenders participating in the program.
``(f) Supplement Not Supplant.--An eligible entity shall
use Federal funds received under this section only to
supplement the funds that would, in the absence of those
Federal funds, be made available from other Federal and non-
Federal sources for the activities described in this section,
and not to supplant those funds. The Federal share of a grant
made under this section may not exceed 50 percent of the
total costs of the program described in an application under
subsection (d).
``(g) Geographic Distribution.--The Attorney General shall
ensure that, to the extent practicable, the geographical
distribution of grants under this section is equitable and
includes a grant to an eligible entity in--
``(1) each State;
``(2) rural, suburban, and urban areas; and
``(3) Tribal jurisdictions.
``(h) Reports and Evaluations.--Each fiscal year, each
recipient of a grant under this section during that fiscal
year shall submit to the Attorney General a report on the
outcomes of activities carried out using that grant in such
form, containing such information, and on such dates as the
Attorney General shall specify.
``(i) Accountability.--All grants awarded by the Attorney
General under this section shall be subject to the following
accountability provisions:
``(1) Audit requirement.--
``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `unresolved
audit finding' means a finding in the final audit report of
the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that the
audited grantee has utilized grant funds for an unauthorized
expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that is not closed
or resolved within 12 months from the date on which the final
audit report is issued.
``(B) Audits.--Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment of this subsection, and in each
fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients of
grants under this section to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse
of funds by grantees. The Inspector General shall determine
the appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year.
``(C) Mandatory exclusion.--A recipient of grant funds
under this section that is found to have an unresolved audit
finding shall not be eligible to receive grant funds under
this section during the first 2 fiscal years beginning after
the end of the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A).
``(D) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to eligible applicants
that did not have an unresolved audit finding during the 3
fiscal years before submitting an application for a grant
under this section.
``(E) Reimbursement.--If an entity is awarded grant funds
under this section during the 2-fiscal-year period during
which the entity is barred from receiving grants under
subparagraph (C), the Attorney General shall--
``(i) deposit an amount equal to the amount of the grant
funds that were improperly awarded to the grantee into the
General Fund of the Treasury; and
``(ii) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the
fund from the grant recipient that was erroneously awarded
grant funds.
``(2) Nonprofit organization requirements.--
``(A) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph and the
grant programs under this part, the term `nonprofit
organization' means an organization that is described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code.
``(B) Prohibition.--The Attorney General may not award a
grant under this part to a nonprofit organization that holds
money in offshore accounts for the purpose of avoiding paying
the tax described in section 511(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986.
``(C) Disclosure.--Each nonprofit organization that is
awarded a grant under this section and uses the procedures
prescribed in regulations to create a rebuttable presumption
of reasonableness for the compensation of its officers,
directors, trustees, and key employees, shall disclose to the
Attorney General, in the application for the grant, the
process for determining such compensation, including the
independent persons involved in reviewing and approving such
compensation, the comparability data used, and
contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and
decision. Upon request, the Attorney General shall make the
information disclosed under this subparagraph available for
public inspection.
``(3) Conference expenditures.--
``(A) Limitation.--No amounts made available to the
Department of Justice under this section may be used by the
Attorney General, or by any individual or entity awarded
discretionary funds through a cooperative agreement under
this section, to host or support any expenditure for
conferences that uses more than $20,000 in funds made
available by the Department of Justice, unless the head of
the relevant agency or department, provides prior written
authorization that the funds may be expended to host the
conference.
``(B) Written approval.--Written approval under
subparagraph (A) shall include a written estimate of all
costs associated with the conference, including the cost of
all food, beverages, audio-visual equipment, honoraria for
speakers, and entertainment.
``(C) Report.--The Deputy Attorney General shall submit an
annual report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives on all conference expenditures approved under
this paragraph.
``(4) Annual certification.--Beginning in the first fiscal
year beginning after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Attorney General shall submit, to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, an annual certification--
``(A) indicating whether--
``(i) all audits issued by the Office of the Inspector
General under paragraph (1) have been completed and reviewed
by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or Director;
``(ii) all mandatory exclusions required under paragraph
(1)(C) have been issued; and
``(iii) all reimbursements required under paragraph (1)(E)
have been made; and
``(B) that includes a list of any grant recipients excluded
under paragraph (1) from the previous year.
``(5) Preventing duplicative grants.--
``(A) In general.--Before the Attorney General awards a
grant to an applicant under this section, the Attorney
General shall compare potential grant awards with other
grants awarded under this Act to determine if duplicate grant
awards are awarded for the same purpose.
``(B) Report.--If the Attorney General awards duplicate
grants to the same applicant for the same purpose the
Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives a report that includes--
``(i) a list of all duplicate grants awarded, including the
total dollar amount of any duplicate grants awarded; and
``(ii) the reason the Attorney General awarded the
duplicate grants.''.

SEC. 114. NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND MENTAL HEALTH
TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

Part HH of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 2992. NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND MENTAL HEALTH
TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

``(a) Authority.--The Attorney General may make grants to
eligible organizations to provide for the establishment of a
National Criminal Justice and Mental Health Training and
Technical Assistance Center.
``(b) Eligible Organization.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the term `eligible organization' means a national
nonprofit organization that provides technical assistance and
training to, and has special expertise and broad, national-
level experience in, mental health, crisis intervention,
criminal justice systems, law enforcement, translating
evidence into practice, training, and research, and education
and support of people with mental illness and the families of
such individuals.
``(c) Use of Funds.--Any organization that receives a grant
under subsection (a) shall establish and operate a National
Criminal Justice and Mental Health Training and Technical
Assistance Center to--
``(1) provide law enforcement officer training regarding
mental health and working with individuals with mental
illnesses, with an emphasis on de-escalation of encounters
between law enforcement officers and those with mental
disorders or in crisis, which shall include support the
development of in-person and technical information exchanges
between systems and the individuals working in those systems
in support of the concepts identified in the training;

[[Page S6397]]

``(2) provide education, training, and technical assistance
for States, Indian tribes, territories, units of local
government, service providers, nonprofit organizations,
probation or parole officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys,
emergency response providers, and corrections institutions to
advance practice and knowledge relating to mental health
crisis and approaches to mental health and criminal justice
across systems;
``(3) provide training and best practices around relating
to diversion initiatives, jail and prison strategies, reentry
of individuals with mental illnesses in into the community,
and dispatch protocols and triage capabilities, including the
establishment of learning sites;
``(4) develop suicide prevention and crisis intervention
training and technical assistance for criminal justice
agencies;
``(5) develop a receiving center system and pilot strategy
that provides a single point of entry into the mental health
and substance abuse system for assessments and appropriate
placement of individuals experiencing a crisis;
``(6) collect data and best practices in mental health and
criminal health and criminal justice initiatives and policies
from grantees under this part, other recipients of grants
under this section, Federal, State, and local agencies
involved in the provision of mental health services, and non-
governmental organizations involved in the provision of
mental health services;
``(7) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms,
and measures to better assess and document performance
measures and outcomes;
``(8) disseminate information to States, units of local
government, criminal justice agencies, law enforcement
agencies, and other relevant entities about best practices,
policy standards, and research findings; and
``(9) provide education and support to individuals with
mental illness involved with, or at risk of involvement with,
the criminal justice system, including the families of such
individuals.
``(d) Accountability.--Grants awarded under this section
shall be subject to the following accountability provisions:
``(1) Audit requirement.--
``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `unresolved
audit finding' means a finding in the final audit report of
the Inspector General of the Department of Justice under
subparagraph (C) that the audited grantee has used grant
funds for an unauthorized expenditure or otherwise
unallowable cost that is not closed or resolved within 1 year
after the date on which the final audit report is issued.
``(B) Audits.--Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment of this section, and in each
fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice shall conduct audits of grantees under
this section to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds by
grantees. The Inspector General shall determine the
appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year.
``(C) Final audit report.--The Inspector General of the
Department of Justice shall submit a final report on each
audit conducted under subparagraph (B).
``(D) Mandatory exclusion.--Grantees under this section
about which there is an unresolved audit finding shall not be
eligible to receive a grant under this section during the 2
fiscal years beginning after the end of the 1-year period
described in subparagraph (A).
``(E) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to applicants that did
not have an unresolved audit finding during the 3 fiscal
years before submitting an application for a grant under this
section.
``(F) Reimbursement.--If an entity receives a grant under
this section during the 2-fiscal-year period during which the
entity is prohibited from receiving grants under subparagraph
(D), the Attorney General shall--
``(i) deposit an amount equal to the amount of the grant
that was improperly awarded to the grantee into the General
Fund of the Treasury; and
``(ii) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment under
clause (i) from the grantee that was erroneously awarded
grant funds.
``(2) Nonprofit agency requirements.--
``(A) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph and the
grant program under this section, the term `nonprofit agency'
means an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3))
and is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(a)).
``(B) Prohibition.--The Attorney General may not award a
grant under this section to a nonprofit agency that holds
money in an offshore account for the purpose of avoiding
paying the tax described in section 511(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 511(a)).
``(C) Disclosure.--Each nonprofit agency that is awarded a
grant under this section and uses the procedures prescribed
in regulations to create a rebuttable presumption of
reasonableness for the compensation of its officers,
directors, trustees, and key employees, shall disclose to the
Attorney General, in the application for the grant, the
process for determining such compensation, including the
independent persons involved in reviewing and approving such
compensation, the comparability data used, and
contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and
decision. Upon request, the Attorney General shall make the
information disclosed under this subparagraph available for
public inspection.
``(3) Conference expenditures.--
``(A) Limitation.--No amounts made available to the
Department of Justice under this section may be used by the
Attorney General, or by any individual or entity awarded
discretionary funds through a cooperative agreement under
this section, to host or support any expenditure for
conferences that uses more than $20,000 in funds made
available by the Department of Justice, unless the head of
the relevant agency or department, provides prior written
authorization that the funds may be expended to host the
conference.
``(B) Written approval.--Written approval under
subparagraph (A) shall include a written estimate of all
costs associated with the conference, including the cost of
all food, beverages, audio-visual equipment, honoraria for
speakers, and entertainment.
``(C) Report.--The Deputy Attorney General shall submit an
annual report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives on all conference expenditures approved under
this paragraph.
``(4) Annual certification.--Beginning in the first fiscal
year beginning after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Attorney General shall submit to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives an annual certification--
``(A) indicating whether--
``(i) all final audit reports issued by the Office of the
Inspector General under paragraph (1) have been completed and
reviewed by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or
Director;
``(ii) all mandatory exclusions required under paragraph
(1)(D) have been issued; and
``(iii) any reimbursements required under paragraph (1)(F)
have been made; and
``(B) that includes a list of any grantees excluded under
paragraph (1)(D) from the previous year.
``(5) Preventing duplicative grants.--
``(A) In general.--Before the Attorney General awards a
grant to an applicant under this section, the Attorney
General shall compare potential grant awards with other
grants awarded under this Act to determine if duplicate grant
awards are awarded for the same purpose.
``(B) Report.--If the Attorney General awards duplicate
grants to the same applicant for the same purpose the
Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives a report that includes--
``(i) a list of all duplicate grants awarded, including the
total dollar amount of any duplicate grants awarded; and
``(ii) the reason the Attorney General awarded the
duplicate grants.''.

SEC. 115. IMPROVING DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DATA COLLECTION ON
MENTAL ILLNESS INVOLVED IN CRIME.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date on
which the Attorney General promulgates regulations under
subsection (b), any data prepared by, or submitted to, the
Attorney General or the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation with respect to the incidences of homicides,
law enforcement officers killed, seriously injured, and
assaulted, or individuals killed or seriously injured by law
enforcement officers shall include data with respect to the
involvement of mental illness in such incidences, if any.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
promulgate or revise regulations as necessary to carry out
subsection (a).

SEC. 116. REPORTS ON THE NUMBER OF MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS IN
PRISON.

(a) Report on the Cost of Treating the Mentally Ill in the
Criminal Justice System.--Not later than 12 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to Congress a report detailing the
cost of imprisonment for individuals who have serious mental
illness by the Federal Government or a State or unit of local
government, which shall include--
(1) the number and type of crimes committed by individuals
with serious mental illness each year; and
(2) detail strategies or ideas for preventing crimes by
those individuals with serious mental illness from occurring.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the Attorney
General, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of
Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders shall defined
``serious mental illness'' based on the ``Health Care Reform
for Americans with Severe Mental Illnesses: Report'' of the
National Advisory Mental Health Council, American Journal of
Psychiatry 1993; 150:1447-1465.

TITLE II--COMPREHENSIVE JUSTICE AND MENTAL HEALTH ACT

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Justice and
Mental Health Act of 2015''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) An estimated 2,000,000 individuals with serious mental
illnesses are booked into jails

[[Page S6398]]

each year, resulting in prevalence rates of serious mental
illness in jails that are 3 to 6 times higher than in the
general population. An even greater number of individuals who
are detained in jails each year have mental health problems
that do not rise to the level of a serious mental illness but
may still require a resource-intensive response.
(2) Adults with mental illnesses cycle through jails more
often than individuals without mental illnesses, and tend to
stay longer (including before trial, during trial, and after
sentencing).
(3) According to estimates, almost \3/4\ of jail detainees
with serious mental illnesses have co-occurring substance use
disorders, and individuals with mental illnesses are also
much more likely to have serious physical health needs.
(4) Among individuals under probation supervision,
individuals with mental disorders are nearly twice as likely
as other individuals to have their community sentence
revoked, furthering their involvement in the criminal justice
system. Reasons for revocation may be directly or indirectly
related to an individual's mental disorder.

SEC. 203. SEQUENTIAL INTERCEPT MODEL.

(a) Redesignation.--Section 2991 of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa) is
amended by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (o).
(b) Sequential Intercept Model.--Section 2991 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3797aa) is amended by inserting after subsection (h) the
following:
``(i) Sequential Intercept Grants.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `eligible
entity' means a State, unit of local government, Indian
tribe, or tribal organization.
``(2) Authorization.--The Attorney General may make grants
under this subsection to an eligible entity for sequential
intercept mapping and implementation in accordance with
paragraph (3).
``(3) Sequential intercept mapping; implementation.--An
eligible entity that receives a grant under this subsection
may use funds for--
``(A) sequential intercept mapping, which--
``(i) shall consist of--

``(I) convening mental health and criminal justice
stakeholders to--

``(aa) develop a shared understanding of the flow of
justice-involved individuals with mental illnesses through
the criminal justice system; and
``(bb) identify opportunities for improved collaborative
responses to the risks and needs of individuals described in
item (aa); and

``(II) developing strategies to address gaps in services
and bring innovative and effective programs to scale along
multiple intercepts, including--

``(aa) emergency and crisis services;
``(bb) specialized police-based responses;
``(cc) court hearings and disposition alternatives;
``(dd) reentry from jails and prisons; and
``(ee) community supervision, treatment and support
services; and
``(ii) may serve as a starting point for the development of
strategic plans to achieve positive public health and safety
outcomes; and
``(B) implementation, which shall--
``(i) be derived from the strategic plans described in
subparagraph (A)(ii); and
``(ii) consist of--

``(I) hiring and training personnel;
``(II) identifying the eligible entity's target population;
``(III) providing services and supports to reduce
unnecessary penetration into the criminal justice system;
``(IV) reducing recidivism;
``(V) evaluating the impact of the eligible entity's
approach; and
``(VI) planning for the sustainability of effective
interventions.''.

SEC. 204. VETERANS TREATMENT COURTS.

Section 2991 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa) is amended by inserting after
subsection (i), as added by section 203, the following:
``(j) Assisting Veterans.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Peer to peer services or programs.--The term `peer to
peer services or programs' means services or programs that
connect qualified veterans with other veterans for the
purpose of providing support and mentorship to assist
qualified veterans in obtaining treatment, recovery,
stabilization, or rehabilitation.
``(B) Qualified veteran.--The term `qualified veteran'
means a preliminarily qualified offender who--
``(i) served on active duty in any branch of the Armed
Forces, including the National Guard or Reserves; and
``(ii) was discharged or released from such service under
conditions other than dishonorable.
``(C) Veterans treatment court program.--The term `veterans
treatment court program' means a court program involving
collaboration among criminal justice, veterans, and mental
health and substance abuse agencies that provides qualified
veterans with--
``(i) intensive judicial supervision and case management,
which may include random and frequent drug testing where
appropriate;
``(ii) a full continuum of treatment services, including
mental health services, substance abuse services, medical
services, and services to address trauma;
``(iii) alternatives to incarceration; and
``(iv) other appropriate services, including housing,
transportation, mentoring, employment, job training,
education, and assistance in applying for and obtaining
available benefits.
``(2) Veterans assistance program.--
``(A) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation
with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, may award grants
under this subsection to applicants to establish or expand--
``(i) veterans treatment court programs;
``(ii) peer to peer services or programs for qualified
veterans;
``(iii) practices that identify and provide treatment,
rehabilitation, legal, transitional, and other appropriate
services to qualified veterans who have been incarcerated;
and
``(iv) training programs to teach criminal justice, law
enforcement, corrections, mental health, and substance abuse
personnel how to identify and appropriately respond to
incidents involving qualified veterans.
``(B) Priority.--In awarding grants under this subsection,
the Attorney General shall give priority to applications
that--
``(i) demonstrate collaboration between and joint
investments by criminal justice, mental health, substance
abuse, and veterans service agencies;
``(ii) promote effective strategies to identify and reduce
the risk of harm to qualified veterans and public safety; and
``(iii) propose interventions with empirical support to
improve outcomes for qualified veterans.''.

SEC. 205. PRISON AND JAILS.

Section 2991 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa) is amended by inserting after
subsection (j), as added by section 204, the following:
``(k) Correctional Facilities.--
``(1) Definitions.--
``(A) Correctional facility.--The term `correctional
facility' means a jail, prison, or other detention facility
used to house people who have been arrested, detained, held,
or convicted by a criminal justice agency or a court.
``(B) Eligible inmate.--The term `eligible inmate' means an
individual who--
``(i) is being held, detained, or incarcerated in a
correctional facility; and
``(ii) manifests obvious signs of a mental illness or has
been diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional as
having a mental illness.
``(2) Correctional facility grants.--The Attorney General
may award grants to applicants to enhance the capabilities of
a correctional facility--
``(A) to identify and screen for eligible inmates;
``(B) to plan and provide--
``(i) initial and periodic assessments of the clinical,
medical, and social needs of inmates; and
``(ii) appropriate treatment and services that address the
mental health and substance abuse needs of inmates;
``(C) to develop, implement, and enhance--
``(i) post-release transition plans for eligible inmates
that, in a comprehensive manner, coordinate health, housing,
medical, employment, and other appropriate services and
public benefits;
``(ii) the availability of mental health care services and
substance abuse treatment services; and
``(iii) alternatives to solitary confinement and segregated
housing and mental health screening and treatment for inmates
placed in solitary confinement or segregated housing; and
``(D) to train each employee of the correctional facility
to identify and appropriately respond to incidents involving
inmates with mental health or co-occurring mental health and
substance abuse disorders.''.

SEC. 206. ALLOWABLE USES.

Section 2991(b)(5)(I) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa(b)(5)(I)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(v) Teams addressing frequent users of crisis services.--
Multidisciplinary teams that--

``(I) coordinate, implement, and administer community-based
crisis responses and long-term plans for frequent users of
crisis services;
``(II) provide training on how to respond appropriately to
the unique issues involving frequent users of crisis services
for public service personnel, including criminal justice,
mental health, substance abuse, emergency room, healthcare,
law enforcement, corrections, and housing personnel;
``(III) develop or support alternatives to hospital and
jail admissions for frequent users of crisis services that
provide treatment, stabilization, and other appropriate
supports in the least restrictive, yet appropriate,
environment; and
``(IV) develop protocols and systems among law enforcement,
mental health, substance abuse, housing, corrections, and
emergency medical service operations to provide coordinated
assistance to frequent users of crisis services.''.

SEC. 207. LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING.

Section 2991(h) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa(h)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Academy training.--To provide support for academy
curricula, law enforcement officer orientation programs,
continuing

[[Page S6399]]

education training, and other programs that teach law
enforcement personnel how to identify and respond to
incidents involving persons with mental health disorders or
co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders.'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Priority consideration.--The Attorney General, in
awarding grants under this subsection, shall give priority to
programs that law enforcement personnel and members of the
mental health and substance abuse professions develop and
administer cooperatively.''.

SEC. 208. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General shall provide direction and
guidance for the following:
(1) Training programs.--Programs that offer specialized and
comprehensive training, in procedures to identify and
appropriately respond to incidents in which the unique needs
of individuals who have a mental illness are involved, to
first responders and tactical units of--
(A) Federal law enforcement agencies; and
(B) other Federal criminal justice agencies such as the
Bureau of Prisons, the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, and other agencies that the Attorney General
determines appropriate.
(2) Improved technology.--The establishment of, or
improvement of existing, computerized information systems to
provide timely information to employees of Federal law
enforcement agencies, and Federal criminal justice agencies
to improve the response of such employees to situations
involving individuals who have a mental illness.

SEC. 209. GAO REPORT.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States, in
coordination with the Attorney General, shall submit to
Congress a report on--
(1) the practices that Federal first responders, tactical
units, and corrections officers are trained to use in
responding to individuals with mental illness;
(2) procedures to identify and appropriately respond to
incidents in which the unique needs of individuals who have a
mental illness are involved, to Federal first responders and
tactical units;
(3) the application of evidence-based practices in criminal
justice settings to better address individuals with mental
illnesses; and
(4) recommendations on how the Department of Justice can
expand and improve information sharing and dissemination of
best practices.

SEC. 210. EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICES.

Section 2991(c) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3), the following:
``(4) propose interventions that have been shown by
empirical evidence to reduce recidivism;
``(5) when appropriate, use validated assessment tools to
target preliminarily qualified offenders with a moderate or
high risk of recidivism and a need for treatment and
services; or''.

SEC. 211. TRANSPARENCY, PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY, AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LOCAL AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Section 2991(a) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Mental illness'' and
inserting ``Mental illness; mental health disorder''; and
(B) by striking ``term ``mental illness'' means'' and
inserting ``terms ``mental illness'' and ``mental health
disorder'' mean''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (9) and inserting the following:
``(9) Preliminarily qualified offender.--
``(A) In general.--The term `preliminarily qualified
offender' means an adult or juvenile accused of an offense
who--
``(i)(I) previously or currently has been diagnosed by a
qualified mental health professional as having a mental
illness or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse
disorders;
``(II) manifests obvious signs of mental illness or co-
occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders during
arrest or confinement or before any court; or
``(III) in the case of a veterans treatment court provided
under subsection (i), has been diagnosed with, or manifests
obvious signs of, mental illness or a substance abuse
disorder or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse
disorder;
``(ii) has been unanimously approved for participation in a
program funded under this section by, when appropriate--

``(I) the relevant--

``(aa) prosecuting attorney;
``(bb) defense attorney;
``(cc) probation or corrections official; and
``(dd) judge; and

``(II) a representative from the relevant mental health
agency described in subsection (b)(5)(B)(i);

``(iii) has been determined, by each person described in
clause (ii) who is involved in approving the adult or
juvenile for participation in a program funded under this
section, to not pose a risk of violence to any person in the
program, or the public, if selected to participate in the
program; and
``(iv) has not been charged with or convicted of--

``(I) any sex offense (as defined in section 111 of the Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911))
or any offense relating to the sexual exploitation of
children; or
``(II) murder or assault with intent to commit murder.

``(B) Determination.--In determining whether to designate a
defendant as a preliminarily qualified offender, the relevant
prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, probation or
corrections official, judge, and mental health or substance
abuse agency representative shall take into account--
``(i) whether the participation of the defendant in the
program would pose a substantial risk of violence to the
community;
``(ii) the criminal history of the defendant and the nature
and severity of the offense for which the defendant is
charged;
``(iii) the views of any relevant victims to the offense;
``(iv) the extent to which the defendant would benefit from
participation in the program;
``(v) the extent to which the community would realize cost
savings because of the defendant's participation in the
program; and
``(vi) whether the defendant satisfies the eligibility
criteria for program participation unanimously established by
the relevant prosecuting attorney, defense attorney,
probation or corrections official, judge and mental health or
substance abuse agency representative.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 2927(2) of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3797s-6(2)) is amended by striking ``has the meaning
given that term in section 2991(a).'' and inserting ``means
an offense that--
``(A) does not have as an element the use, attempted use,
or threatened use of physical force against the person or
property of another; or
``(B) is not a felony that by its nature involves a
substantial risk that physical force against the person or
property of another may be used in the course of committing
the offense.''.

SEC. 212. GRANT ACCOUNTABILITY.

Section 2991 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa) is amended by inserting after
subsection (k), as added by section 205, the following:
``(m) Accountability.--All grants awarded by the Attorney
General under this section shall be subject to the following
accountability provisions:
``(1) Audit requirement.--
``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `unresolved
audit finding' means a finding in the final audit report of
the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that the
audited grantee has utilized grant funds for an unauthorized
expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that is not closed
or resolved within 12 months from the date when the final
audit report is issued.
``(B) Audits.--Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment of this subsection, and in each
fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients of
grants under this section to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse
of funds by grantees. The Inspector General shall determine
the appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year.
``(C) Mandatory exclusion.--A recipient of grant funds
under this section that is found to have an unresolved audit
finding shall not be eligible to receive grant funds under
this section during the first 2 fiscal years beginning after
the end of the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A).
``(D) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Attorney General shall give priority to eligible applicants
that did not have an unresolved audit finding during the 3
fiscal years before submitting an application for a grant
under this section.
``(E) Reimbursement.--If an entity is awarded grant funds
under this section during the 2-fiscal-year period during
which the entity is barred from receiving grants under
subparagraph (C), the Attorney General shall--
``(i) deposit an amount equal to the amount of the grant
funds that were improperly awarded to the grantee into the
General Fund of the Treasury; and
``(ii) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the
fund from the grant recipient that was erroneously awarded
grant funds.
``(2) Nonprofit organization requirements.--
``(A) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph and the
grant programs under this part, the term `nonprofit
organization' means an organization that is described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is
exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code.
``(B) Prohibition.--The Attorney General may not award a
grant under this part to a nonprofit organization that holds
money in offshore accounts for the purpose of avoiding paying
the tax described in section 511(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986.

[[Page S6400]]

``(C) Disclosure.--Each nonprofit organization that is
awarded a grant under this section and uses the procedures
prescribed in regulations to create a rebuttable presumption
of reasonableness for the compensation of its officers,
directors, trustees, and key employees, shall disclose to the
Attorney General, in the application for the grant, the
process for determining such compensation, including the
independent persons involved in reviewing and approving such
compensation, the comparability data used, and
contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and
decision. Upon request, the Attorney General shall make the
information disclosed under this subparagraph available for
public inspection.
``(3) Conference expenditures.--
``(A) Limitation.--No amounts made available to the
Department of Justice under this section may be used by the
Attorney General, or by any individual or entity awarded
discretionary funds through a cooperative agreement under
this section, to host or support any expenditure for
conferences that uses more than $20,000 in funds made
available by the Department of Justice, unless the head of
the relevant agency or department, provides prior written
authorization that the funds may be expended to host the
conference.
``(B) Written approval.--Written approval under
subparagraph (A) shall include a written estimate of all
costs associated with the conference, including the cost of
all food, beverages, audio-visual equipment, honoraria for
speakers, and entertainment.
``(C) Report.--The Deputy Attorney General shall submit an
annual report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives on all conference expenditures approved under
this paragraph.
``(4) Annual certification.--Beginning in the first fiscal
year beginning after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Attorney General shall submit, to the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, an annual certification--
``(A) indicating whether--
``(i) all audits issued by the Office of the Inspector
General under paragraph (1) have been completed and reviewed
by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or Director;
``(ii) all mandatory exclusions required under paragraph
(1)(C) have been issued; and
``(iii) all reimbursements required under paragraph (1)(E)
have been made; and
``(B) that includes a list of any grant recipients excluded
under paragraph (1) from the previous year.
``(n) Preventing Duplicative Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Before the Attorney General awards a
grant to an applicant under this section, the Attorney
General shall compare potential grant awards with other
grants awarded under this Act to determine if duplicate grant
awards are awarded for the same purpose.
``(2) Report.--If the Attorney General awards duplicate
grants to the same applicant for the same purpose the
Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives a report that includes--
``(A) a list of all duplicate grants awarded, including the
total dollar amount of any duplicate grants awarded; and
``(B) the reason the Attorney General awarded the duplicate
grants.''.

TITLE III--NICS REAUTHORIZATION AND NICS IMPROVEMENT

SEC. 301. REAUTHORIZATION OF NICS.

(a) In General.--Section 103(e) of the NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by
striking ``fiscal year 2013'' and inserting ``each of fiscal
years 2016 through 2020''.

SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO MENTAL HEALTH.

(a) Title 18 Definitions.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:
``(36)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the term `has been
adjudicated mentally incompetent or has been committed to a
psychiatric hospital', with respect to a person--
``(i) means the person is the subject of an order or
finding by a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or
other adjudicative body--

``(I) that was issued after--

``(aa) a hearing--
``(AA) of which the person received actual notice; and
``(BB) at which the person had an opportunity to
participate with counsel; or
``(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the
opportunity for a hearing--
``(AA) of which the person received actual notice; and
``(BB) at which the person would have had an opportunity to
participate with counsel; and

``(II) that found that the person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, mental impairment, mental illness,
incompetency, condition, or disease--

``(aa) was a danger to himself or herself or to others;
``(bb) was guilty but mentally ill in a criminal case, in a
jurisdiction that provides for such a verdict;
``(cc) was not guilty in a criminal case by reason of
insanity or mental disease or defect;
``(dd) was incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case;
``(ee) was not guilty by reason of lack of mental
responsibility under section 850a of title 10 (article 50a of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice);
``(ff) required involuntary inpatient treatment by a
psychiatric hospital for any reason, including substance
abuse; or
``(gg) required involuntary outpatient treatment by a
psychiatric hospital based on a finding that the person is a
danger to himself or herself or to others; and
``(ii) does not include--

``(I) an admission to a psychiatric hospital for
observation; or
``(II) a voluntary admission to a psychiatric hospital.

``(B) In this paragraph, the term `order or finding' does
not include--
``(i) an order or finding that has expired or has been set
aside or expunged;
``(ii) an order or finding that is no longer applicable
because a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or
other adjudicative body has found that the person who is the
subject of the order or finding--

``(I) does not present a danger to himself or herself or to
others;
``(II) has been restored to sanity or cured of mental
disease or defect;
``(III) has been restored to competency; or
``(IV) no longer requires involuntary inpatient or
outpatient treatment by a psychiatric hospital; or

``(iii) an order or finding with respect to which the
person who is subject to the order or finding has been
granted relief from disabilities under section 925(c), under
a program described in section 101(c)(2)(A) or 105 of the
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note),
or under any other State-authorized relief from disabilities
program of the State in which the original commitment or
adjudication occurred.
``(37) The term `psychiatric hospital' includes a mental
health facility, a mental hospital, a sanitarium, a
psychiatric facility, and any other facility that provides
diagnoses or treatment by licensed professionals of mental
retardation or mental illness, including a psychiatric ward
in a general hospital.''; and
(2) in section 922--
(A) in subsection (d)(4)--
(i) by striking ``as a mental defective'' and inserting
``mentally incompetent''; and
(ii) by striking ``any mental institution'' and inserting
``a psychiatric hospital''; and
(B) in subsection (g)(4)--
(i) by striking ``as a mental defective or who has'' and
inserting ``mentally incompetent or has''; and
(ii) by striking ``mental institution'' and inserting
``psychiatric hospital''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``as a mental defective'' each place that
term appears and inserting ``mentally incompetent'';
(2) by striking ``mental institution'' each place that term
appears and inserting ``psychiatric hospital'';
(3) in section 101(c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``to the mental health of a person'' and
inserting ``to whether a person is mentally incompetent'';
and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``to the mental
health of a person'' and inserting ``to whether a person is
mentally incompetent''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``to the mental
health of a person'' and inserting ``to whether a person is
mentally incompetent''; and
(4) in section 102(c)(3)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``as a mental
defective or committed to a mental institution'' and
inserting ``mentally incompetent or committed to a
psychiatric hospital''; and
(B) by striking ``mental institutions'' and inserting
``psychiatric hospitals''.

SEC. 303. INCENTIVES FOR STATE COMPLIANCE WITH NICS MENTAL
HEALTH RECORD REQUIREMENTS.

Section 104(b) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of
2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
(3) in paragraph (2), as redesignated, by striking ``of
paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``of paragraph (1)''; and
(4) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated, the
following:
``(1) Incentives for providing mental health records and
fixing the background check system.--
``(A) Definition of compliant state.--In this paragraph,
the term `compliant State' means a State that has--
``(i) provided not less than 90 percent of the records
required to be provided under sections 102 and 103; or
``(ii) in effect a statute that--

``(I) requires the State to provide the records required to
be provided under sections 102 and 103; and
``(II) implements a relief from disabilities program in
accordance with section 105.

[[Page S6401]]

``(B) Incentives for compliance.--During the period
beginning on the date that is 18 months after the enactment
of the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 and
ending on the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of such Act, the Attorney General--
``(i) shall use funds appropriated to carry out section 103
of this Act, the excess unobligated balances of the
Department of Justice and funds withheld under clause (ii),
or any combination thereof, to increase the amounts available
under section 505 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) for each compliant
State in an amount that is not less than 2 percent nor more
than 5 percent of the amount that was allocated to such State
under such section 505 in the previous fiscal year; and
``(ii) may withhold an amount not to exceed the amount
described in clause (i) that would otherwise be allocated to
a State under any section of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) if the
State--

``(I) is not a compliant State; and
``(II) does not submit an assurance to the Attorney General
that--

``(aa) an amount that is not less than the amount described
in clause (i) will be used solely for the purpose of enabling
the State to become a compliant State; or
``(bb) the State will hold in abeyance an amount that is
not less than the amount described in clause (i) until such
State has become a compliant State.
``(C) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the
enactment of the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of
2015, the Attorney General shall issue regulations
implementing this paragraph.''.

SEC. 304. PROTECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF VETERANS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 55 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 5511. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as
adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes

``(a) Protecting Rights of Veterans With Existing
Records.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment
of the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015, the
Secretary shall provide written notice in accordance with
subsection (b) of the opportunity for administrative review
under subsection (c) to all persons who, on the date of
enactment of the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of
2015, are considered to have been adjudicated mentally
incompetent or committed to a psychiatric hospital under
subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 as a
result of having been found by the Department to be mentally
incompetent.
``(b) Notice.--The Secretary shall provide notice under
this section to a person described in subsection (a) that
notifies the person of--
``(1) the determination made by the Secretary;
``(2) a description of the implications of being considered
to have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed to
a psychiatric hospital under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of
section 922 of title 18; and
``(3) the right of the person to request a review under
subsection (c)(1).
``(c) Administrative Review.--
``(1) Request.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which a person described in subsection (a) receives notice in
accordance with subsection (b), such person may request a
review by the board designed or established under paragraph
(2) or by a court of competent jurisdiction to assess whether
the person is a danger to himself or herself or to others. In
such assessment, the board may consider the person's
honorable discharge or decorations.
``(2) Board.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of
2015, the Secretary shall designate or establish a board that
shall, upon request of a person under paragraph (1), assess
whether the person is a danger to himself or herself or to
others.
``(d) Judicial Review.--A person may file a petition with a
Federal court of competent jurisdiction for judicial review
of an assessment of the person under subsection (c) by the
board designated or established under subsection (c)(2).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
55 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``5511. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated
mentally incompetent for certain purposes.''.

SEC. 305. APPLICABILITY OF AMENDMENTS.

With respect to any record of a person prohibited from
possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (d)(4) or
(g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, before
the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
remove such a record from the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System--
(1) upon being made aware that the person is no longer
considered as adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed
to a psychiatric hospital according to the criteria under
paragraph (36)(A)(i)(II) of section 921(a) of title 18,
United States Code (as added by this title), and is therefore
no longer prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm;
(2) upon being made aware that any order or finding that
the record is based on is an order or finding described in
paragraph (36)(B) of section 921(a) of title 18, United State
Code (as added by this title); or
(3) upon being made aware that the person has been found
competent to possess a firearm after an administrative or
judicial review under subsection (c) or (d) of section 5511
of title 38, United States Code (as added by this title).

SEC. 306. CLARIFICATION THAT FEDERAL COURT INFORMATION IS TO
BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(F) Application to federal courts.--In this paragraph--
``(i) the terms `department or agency of the United States'
and `Federal department or agency' include a Federal court;
and
``(ii) for purposes of any request, submission, or
notification, the Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts shall perform the functions of the
head of the department or agency.''.

TITLE IV--REAUTHORIZATIONS AND OFFSET

SEC. 401. REAUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Adult and Juvenile Collaboration Programs.--Subsection
(o) of section 2991 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797aa), as redesignated by
section 203, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``2009 through 2014''
and inserting ``2016 through 2020''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Limitation.--Not more than 20 percent of the funds
authorized to be appropriated under this section may be used
for purposes described in subsection (j) (relating to
veterans).''.
(b) Mental Health Courts and Qualified Drug Treatment
Programs.--Section 1001(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (20), by striking ``2001 through 2004''
and inserting ``2016 through 2020''; and
(2) in paragraph (26), by striking ``2009 and 2010'' and
inserting ``2016 through 2020''.

SEC. 402. OFFSET.

(a) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered
amounts'' means the unobligated balances of discretionary
appropriations accounts, except for the discretionary
appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of
Homeland Security.
(b) Rescission.--
(1) In general.--Effective on the first day of each of
fiscal years 2016 through 2020 , there are rescinded from
covered amounts, on a pro rata basis, the amount described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Amount of rescission.--The amount described in this
subparagraph is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under paragraphs (20) and (26) of section
1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)).
(3) Report.--Not later 60 days after the first day of each
of fiscal years 2016 through 2020, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget shall submit to Congress and the
Secretary of the Treasury a report specifying the account and
amount of each rescission under this subsection

____________________