[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 153 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8081-H8085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1330
                   MENTAL HEALTH JUSTICE ACT OF 2022

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1377, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 8542) to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
authorize grants to States, Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, Urban 
Indian organizations, and political subdivisions thereof to hire, 
employ, train, and dispatch mental health professionals to respond in 
lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies involving one or more 
persons with a mental illness or an intellectual or developmental 
disability, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kildee). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1377, the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 8542

       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 ``Mental Health Justice Act of 
     2022''.

     SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TO ACT AS 
                   FIRST RESPONDERS.

       Subpart 3 of part B of title V of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-31 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 520N. GRANTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TO ACT AS 
                   FIRST RESPONDERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary, and in consultation with the Assistant 
     Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the 
     Department of Justice, shall award grants to States, Indian 
     Tribes, Tribal organizations, Urban Indian organizations, and 
     political subdivisions thereof to establish or expand 
     programs--
       ``(1) to hire, employ, train, and dispatch mental health 
     professionals to respond in lieu of law enforcement officers 
     in emergencies in which--
       ``(A) an individual calling 911, 988, or another emergency 
     hotline states that a person--
       ``(i) is in a mental health crisis; or
       ``(ii) may have a mental illness or an intellectual or 
     developmental disability;
       ``(B) a law enforcement officer or other first responder 
     identifies a person as having (or possibly having) a mental 
     illness or an intellectual or developmental disability; or
       ``(C) a law enforcement officer or other first responder 
     identifies a person as being (or possibly being) under the 
     influence of a legal or illegal substance;
       ``(2) to include in the training for mental health 
     professionals pursuant to paragraph (1) training in--
       ``(A) the principles of deescalation; and
       ``(B) developmentally appropriate techniques;
       ``(3) to ensure that such mental health professionals link 
     persons described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of 
     paragraph (1) with voluntary community-based services where 
     appropriate;
       ``(4) to train the staff of dispatch centers regarding the 
     proper handling of a report of an emergency described in 
     paragraph (1), including training in the principles and 
     techniques referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     paragraph (2); and
       ``(5) to coordinate with law enforcement agencies, which 
     may include operating independently from but in collaboration 
     with a law enforcement agency, or operating within such an 
     agency.
       ``(b) Additional Awards.--The Secretary shall make an 
     additional award of funds under this section each fiscal year 
     to grantees that--
       ``(1) are in compliance with all conditions of their awards 
     under this section, including the conditions specified in 
     subsections (a) and (d); and
       ``(2) demonstrate that their programs under this section 
     resulted in--
       ``(A) a notable reduction in the incarceration and death of 
     persons with mental illness or an intellectual or 
     developmental disability; or
       ``(B) a notable reduction in the use of force by police and 
     a notable increase in referrals of persons with a mental 
     illness or intellectual disability to community-based, 
     voluntary support services (other than institutionalization 
     or carceral support services).
       ``(c) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to States, Indian Tribes, 
     Tribal organizations, Urban Indian organizations, and 
     political subdivisions thereof that--
       ``(1) have high rates of arrests and incarceration of 
     persons with a mental illness or an intellectual or 
     developmental disability;
       ``(2) commit to increasing resources for mental health and 
     community-based support services or solutions for such 
     persons; or
       ``(3) include peer support specialists in their current 
     first responder model.
       ``(d) Reporting.--
       ``(1) By grantees.--A recipient of a grant under this 
     section shall submit to the Secretary--
       ``(A) a quarterly report on--
       ``(i) the number and percentage of emergencies where mental 
     health professionals were dispatched in lieu of law 
     enforcement officers pursuant to assistance under this 
     section;
       ``(ii) such other matters as the Secretary may require for 
     determining whether the recipient should receive an 
     additional award under subsection (b); and
       ``(iii) any increase or decrease, compared to any previous 
     quarter, in incarceration or institutionalization as a result 
     of dispatching mental health professionals pursuant to 
     assistance under this section, disaggregated to include data 
     specific to persons with intellectual and developmental 
     disabilities and mental illnesses where available and 
     permitted to be disclosed under applicable privacy law, so 
     as--

       ``(I) to provide a critical baseline analysis; and
       ``(II) to ensure that mental health practitioners are not 
     simply funneling individuals into other institutionalized 
     settings; and

       ``(B) a final report on the use of such grant.
       ``(2) By secretary.--Not later than 1 year after awarding 
     the first grant under this section, and annually thereafter, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report on the 
     grant program under this section.
       ``(3) Disaggregation of data.--The reporting pursuant to 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) shall, to the extent determined by the 
     Secretary to be applicable, be disaggregated by age, sex, 
     gender, race, and ethnicity.
       ``(e) Revocation of Grant.--If the Secretary finds, based 
     on reporting under subsection (d) or other information, that 
     activities funded through a grant under this section are 
     leading to a significant increase in incarceration or 
     institutionalization--
       ``(1) the Secretary shall revoke the grant; and
       ``(2) the grantee shall repay to the Federal Government any 
     amounts that the grantee--
       ``(A) received through the grant; and
       ``(B) has not obligated or expended.
       ``(f) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary, acting through 
     the Assistant Secretary, and in consultation with the 
     Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of 
     the Department of Justice, shall provide technical assistance 
     to grantees under this section (or other Federal law), and to 
     other States, Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, Urban 
     Indian organizations, and political subdivisions thereof to 
     hire, employ, train, and dispatch mental health professionals 
     to respond in lieu of law enforcement officers, as described 
     in subsection (a).
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section, the terms `Indian 
     Tribe', `Tribal organization', and `Urban Indian 
     organization' have the meanings given to the terms `Indian 
     tribe', `tribal organization', and `Urban Indian 
     organization', respectively, in section 4 of the Indian 
     Health Care Improvement Act.
       ``(h) Funding.--To carry out this section, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $250,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2023 through 2027.''.

     SEC. 3. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     and the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 
     Division of the Department of Justice shall conduct a study 
     on the effectiveness of programs and

[[Page H8082]]

     activities under section 520N of the Public Health Service 
     Act, as added by section 2.
       (b) Qualitative and Longitudinal Examination.--The study 
     under subsection (a) shall include a qualitative and 
     longitudinal study of--
       (1) the number of persons diverted from arrests; and
       (2) short- and long-term outcomes for those persons, 
     including reduced recidivism, reduced incidences of use of 
     force, and reduced utilization of resources.
       (c) Completion; Report.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services and the Assistant Attorney General for the 
     Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice shall--
       (1) complete the study under subsection (a);
       (2) submit a report to the Congress on the results of such 
     study; and
       (3) publish such report.

     SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Hiring of Law Enforcement Officers.--Nothing in this 
     Act shall be construed to remove, supplant, alter, or limit 
     the authority of States, public agencies, or municipalities 
     from hiring or recruiting career law enforcement officers (as 
     defined in section 1709 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10389)) to engage in or 
     supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of 
     violations of criminal laws when appropriate.
       (b) Circumstances of Imminent or Immediate Danger.--Nothing 
     in this Act shall be construed to impede, supplant, alter, or 
     limit the use of career law enforcement officers during 
     emergencies which career law enforcement officers may be best 
     suited to handle, including circumstances that are urgent, 
     sudden, serious, or necessitate immediate action to remedy 
     harm or avert imminent danger to life, health, or property.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 30 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 8542, the Mental Health Justice 
Act of 2022.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 8542, the Mental Health Justice Act 
of 2022, sponsored by Congresswoman Katie Porter of California.
  As my colleagues well know, the Nation is facing a mental health 
crisis. One in five adults experience a mental health illness in their 
life, and 1 in 20 experience a serious mental illness.
  The Mental Health Justice Act creates a grant program for local 
governments to hire, train, and dispatch mental health professionals 
when 911 is called because someone is experiencing a mental health 
crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, we must ensure people have access to the support they 
need, especially in moments of crisis when emergency responders are 
called.
  This legislation would help support connecting those experiencing a 
mental health crisis with the appropriate responders, resources, and 
care. The appropriate responder here is crucial. In an effort to 
balance the needs of individuals and communities, this bill still 
maintains States' and public entities' hiring and recruiting authority 
for law enforcement officers and in no way limits their ability to 
intervene in dangerous circumstances.
  It is through such coordination and collaboration with law 
enforcement and the community that we make our communities safer.
  By ensuring that a mental health professional is the responder in 
situations where a person is experiencing a mental health or 
disability-related crisis, this bill will help keep some of the most 
vulnerable members of our community safe.
  This is a good bill that will help strengthen the communities we 
serve, and I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 8542 today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8542, the Mental 
Health Justice Act of 2022.
  ``In lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.'' I am going to 
say it again, because that is the exact language used repeatedly in the 
bill. ``In lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.''
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is dangerous. This legislation gives Federal 
grants to States, Tribes, and localities to hire mental health 
providers to respond to certain emergencies involving an individual 
with an intellectual disability or developmental disability; an 
individual experiencing a mental health crisis; or an individual under 
the influence.
  There is nothing wrong with mental health professionals assisting law 
enforcement in appropriate circumstances. Communities around the 
country are adopting these models with law enforcement, mental health 
providers, and prosecutors.
  I would be open to supporting legislation limited to training mental 
health providers to assist law enforcement in appropriate situations, 
but that is not what this bill does.
  A sentence in the bill begins by stating that ``mental health 
providers may coordinate with law enforcement.'' Sounds acceptable, but 
it continues to read, ``which may include operating independently'' 
from law enforcement.
  Let's be clear. The purpose of this legislation is to provide 
financial incentives to deploy mental health providers to inherently 
dangerous situations in lieu of law enforcement and operating 
independently of law enforcement. That is a policy that will endanger 
the mental health professional, the suspect, the person experiencing 
the mental health crisis, and the person who called 911.
  A crime scene or a home experiencing a domestic violence dispute is 
not the setting to provide mental health care.
  In the first half of 2022, the leading circumstance of law 
enforcement officers killed with firearms was in response to domestic 
violence calls.
  Nobody can confidently tell us they know in advance which domestic 
violence call should get a mental health response instead of a law 
enforcement response.
  Mental health professionals are not trained for the inevitable 
physical confrontations that occur in these situations. The priority in 
an emergency situation is to secure the scene and all individuals 
involved, which is a law enforcement function. Once the scene is 
secure, I will be the first person calling for mental health services, 
whether it is addiction-related, trauma, or mental illness.
  There is a time and a place for mental health care, but it is not 
rolling up to a scene without the training and tools to defend yourself 
and at-risk civilians. A first responder typically does not have the 
time and information to know when it is appropriate to provide mental 
health services.
  Who are we expecting to make the distinction on mental health? The 
911 dispatcher? An elected official inserted into the emergency 
dispatch process?
  Every additional second layer of bureaucracy will cost lives. The 
risks are even greater in rural parts of the country, like my home 
State of North Dakota, where backup is often measured in hours, not 
minutes.

  Ask a mental health provider if they want to be deployed without law 
enforcement at 1 a.m. on the side of Highway 85 between Dickinson and 
Watford City.
  As if the public safety concerns aren't enough, the bill provides 
additional financial incentives for the actions that may not be in the 
best interest of the individual, the community, or comply with 
established laws of the jurisdiction.
  The bill provides additional awards for referrals to community-based, 
voluntary support services without consideration of the specific needs 
and circumstances.
  Community-based care could be the appropriate setting, but there are 
circumstances where inpatient care or incarceration are simply more 
appropriate.
  The bill also provides incentives for decarceration rates of certain 
groups of individuals. Again, decarceration may make sense at times. I 
have advocated for it in lots of circumstances, but it is

[[Page H8083]]

case specific. I have seen it before. Police arrest on a domestic 
violence charge, release, and respond to a murder 2 hours later.
  These decisions should be made at the local level based on specific 
circumstances with State and local input.
  This bill attempts to treat the subject of the 911 call with fairness 
and dignity. That is something we should all strive toward. The flip 
side is that this bill does not account for the person who made the 911 
call.
  These policies will not work in the real world. It will only make 
dangerous situations more dangerous. The unintended consequences of 
this bill are extensive, and emergency situations will become more 
dangerous than they already are.
  This is why we need committee process to work through these 
challenging issues. Criminal justice reform is hard. There are lots and 
lots of unintended consequences. I have legitimately worked on it my 
entire adult life. But my Democratic colleagues skipped that process 
because their focus is on frontline elections in the House, not 
frontline communities battling rising crime rates.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill.
  Make no mistake, this bill is a Trojan horse to advance the radical 
defund the police movement and will hurt people who need help the most.
  This bill would not only keep our dedicated law enforcement officers 
off the streets at a time when crime is rising and illicit drugs are 
flooding communities but, also, could significantly reduce access to 
care for individuals with severe mental illness or substance use 
disorder. This bill would penalize organizations that have higher rates 
of institutionalization.
  To be clear, we need to promote access to all types of behavioral 
healthcare and substance use disorder services. However, this bill does 
not take into account that sometimes these organizations provide the 
safest, most effective care for individuals with serious mental 
illness.
  If Democrats' goal is to provide effective care for individuals with 
disabilities, severe mental illness, and substance use disorder, then 
we already have legislative solutions which this very body 
overwhelmingly passed in June of this year.

                              {time}  1345

  In June of this year, the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-
Being Act was passed, and it would bolster behavioral health and 
substance use disorder treatment and recovery services for millions of 
Americans, most notably our children.
  Democrats need to work with Republicans on addressing some of the 
root causes of crime, such as our border crisis that the Vice President 
insists is secure despite record numbers of border encounters and 
illicit drugs being trafficked into our country.
  We have a solution in the Energy and Commerce Committee to provide 
law enforcement officers the tools they need to get drugs off our 
streets and break the cycle of addiction. The HALT Fentanyl Act would 
permanently schedule fentanyl-related substances as schedule I drugs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to work with Republicans on passing 
this legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I only have one speaker, so I will continue 
to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence), my good friend.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
8542.
  Plain and simple, this legislation would only amplify the violent 
crime wave we are currently seeing under Democratic leadership. Turn on 
the TV, watch the news. Night after night, we have to hear about the 
innocent lives taken from us because of the violence we are seeing in 
our streets. Just like other communities across the country, 
communities in Indiana aren't immune. Our hardworking law enforcement 
heroes alone are already struggling to keep up with this spike in 
crime.
  This legislation does absolutely nothing to help. In fact, it will 
make the situation worse, making good on Democrats' promise to 
dismantle and defund the police.
  These aren't policing bills. This is a way for the Democrats to just 
check a box in this election year. It is disrespectful to our law 
enforcement community and an insult to those struggling with mental 
health and substance abuse issues.
  I have heard from countless county sheriffs and police chiefs back in 
my district who want to be a partner with mental health providers, not 
be replaced by them.
  I implore my Democratic colleagues to end their war on law 
enforcement and come together to work with Republicans who want to make 
our communities safer.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Porter), the sponsor of this legislation, someone who 
has worked so hard in her time here on mental health and behavioral 
health issues.
  Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support getting Americans 
the help that they need.
  More than one in five 911 calls involve mental health or substance 
use crises. That amounts to millions of calls per year.
  To keep these Americans safe, we need to connect them to healthcare. 
It is wasteful, hurtful, and a travesty of justice to criminalize 
people in mental health crises rather than deliver care.
  One in four fatal law enforcement encounters ends the life of someone 
with mental illness. We cannot improve public safety without giving our 
communities a better response system for mental health crises.
  My bill, the Mental Health Justice Act, funds local communities to 
create specialized mental health response units. Made up of trained 
health professionals, these units can be dispatched to respond to 
emergency calls for mental health. That way, people in crisis can get 
the care they need; police officers can focus on crime, including 
stopping violent crime and other core law enforcement duties; and our 
communities get another tool to address our mental health crisis.
  The Mental Health Justice Act has widespread support from advocacy 
organizations fighting for mental health and civil rights because this 
approach works. In cities that already have these programs across the 
country, we see incredible, positive results and support from local law 
enforcement.
  In Orange County, our law enforcement officials support this bill 
because their job is already difficult enough. They know their sworn 
duty is to prevent and solve crime and hold criminals accountable. 
Sending police to mental health situations diverts their attention from 
crime fighting. I have heard firsthand from officers who want 
specialized mental health response units. This bill empowers police to 
stay where they are needed, fighting crime.
  At the same time, entangling people in mental health crises in the 
criminal justice system or holding them in jail wastes taxpayer dollars 
and doesn't deliver on public safety.

  When we send police to people in crisis, we fail to get those people 
desperately needed healthcare, and we take law enforcement away from 
tackling the violent crime that they are trained to take on. This hurts 
everyone in our community.
  The Mental Health Justice Act is supported by a broad bipartisan 
coalition, co-led by my colleague from Orange County, Republican 
Michelle Steel, and my colleagues Ayanna Pressley, Tony Cardenas, and 
Mary Gay Scanlon.
  Keeping Americans safe and healthy is not a partisan issue. I am 
proud to champion the Mental Health Justice Act, a tested, effective 
solution to promote public safety and well-being for every American.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), my good friend.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this bill.
  The crime rates that we have seen skyrocket across the United States 
can be traced directly back to calls from far-left Members of Congress 
to defund the police.

[[Page H8084]]

  In my own district, we have seen more violent crimes than ever 
before. In the city of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, a community of just 
20,000 people, we have already seen 10 murders so far this year.
  Instead of confronting this issue head-on, this legislative package 
hands out over $2 billion to far-left programs while only funding $60 
million worth of grants for police officers, and that $60 million would 
be spread out over 50 States.
  This bill is deeply misguided and will not address the root issues of 
the crisis that we are facing. Instead, it spends Federal tax dollars 
funding social workers under the guise of supporting law enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on these 
bills, and I myself will vote ``no.''
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the National 
District Attorneys Association in opposition to this legislation.


                                                 National District


                                        Attorneys Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 2022.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: I am reaching out 
     on behalf of the National District Attorneys Association 
     (NDAA), the oldest and largest national organization 
     representing state and local prosecutors in the country. With 
     more than 5,500 members nationwide, NDAA is recognized as the 
     leading source of national expertise on the prosecution 
     function and is a valuable resource for the media, academia, 
     government, and community leaders. Today, I write with 
     concern about H.R. 8542, the Mental Health Justice Act, as 
     part of the policing package moving through Congress.
       NDAA is strongly supportive of increasing funding for our 
     partner law enforcement agencies, implementing new grants 
     focused on reducing community violence, and assisting 
     investigators in solving cold cases to better support victims 
     of violent crime. However, prosecutors have significant 
     concerns about the fourth legislative proposal which would 
     establish new grants to ``hire, employ, train, and dispatch 
     mental health professionals to respond in lieu of law 
     enforcement officers in emergencies.''
       Currently, law enforcement, prosecutors, and mental health 
     professionals across the country are proactively and 
     organically forming multidisciplinary teams and engaging in 
     the co-responder model to better handle incidents involving 
     individuals suffering from mental health crises. For example, 
     jurisdictions have paired law enforcement officers, mental 
     health clinicians, and community advocates together when 
     responding to an individual's mental health emergency called 
     into a 911 dispatcher. This partnership is the first line of 
     response and is then followed by coordination on the back end 
     between additional health professionals and prosecutors to 
     ensure a plan can be enacted to provide the individual in 
     crisis with a plan of rehabilitation that also ensures there 
     is no public safety risk to the community. The language in 
     the Mental Health Justice Act would undermine these 
     collaborative efforts which have been shown to reduce violent 
     crime, limit harm to responding law enforcement officers, and 
     improve community trust in the criminal justice system.
       Further, the legislation takes unprecedented steps to 
     impose new grant conditions that require mental health 
     professionals and community grantees to decrease 
     incarceration and restrict partnership with law enforcement 
     agencies. NDAA has long stated that any diversion or 
     rehabilitation program, such as those led by co-responder 
     teams, must include tools to ensure consequences are imposed 
     if there are incidents of re-offending by the individual 
     receiving treatment. Local communities are best suited to 
     decide which models work best and these onerous new 
     requirements could restrict or discourage programs from 
     forming that serve the dual purpose of rehabilitation and 
     community safety. These new conditions would undermine this 
     principal and require our mental health partners to create 
     new barriers between law enforcement and the clinical 
     professionals working together to improve our Nation's 
     response to ongoing mental health emergencies.
       For these reasons, NDAA urges the House of Representatives 
     to strongly reconsider including the Mental Health Justice 
     Act as part of the important police funding package moving 
     through the chamber. We thank you for your tireless efforts 
     to improve the criminal justice system and look forward to 
     working alongside you and your staff to ensure law 
     enforcement and the mental health community have the tools 
     needed to keep our communities safe.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John J. Flynn,
                                                   NDAA President.

  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close. The only time you know a traffic stop is routine is when it is 
over. The only time you know it is only a mental health service call is 
after the scene is secure.
  Far too often, and more complicated, are addiction-related issues and 
mental health-related issues, but none of those preclude the fact that 
a weapon is there or domestic violence has occurred.
  When you continue to coordinate this stuff for cash-strapped 
departments across the country with decarceration, you will have real 
consequences.
  For well over 25 years, victims' rights groups have fought all across 
this country to get domestic violence offenders held for the weekend on 
misdemeanor charges, and there are reasons for that. You need them to 
sober up; you need everybody to cool off; and victims need the 
opportunity to get out of the house.
  These bills do nothing to do any of those things. These bills will 
make communities more dangerous from one end of the country to the 
other.
  This bill sounds really good. Cooperation, coordination, all of those 
words sound fantastic. I will be the first one championing mental 
health and addiction services to anybody in lieu of custody, in lieu of 
prison, in lieu of jail time, but I want to do it after the scene is 
secure and we know there is no weapon onsite and nobody is in danger, 
when we know the victim is not in danger, the community is not in 
danger, and the person who is experiencing addiction, mental health, 
whatever crisis it is, is not in danger.
  This bill doesn't do that. This bill does the opposite of that. We 
should reject it and get back to work on the hard work of passing 
reasonable, real, strong criminal justice reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter) 
for constantly coming up with innovative approaches to the mental 
health and the opioid crises. I see this over and over again on her 
part.
  Look, the bottom line is local governments need support for these 
types of specialized mental health response units that she has put 
together as part of this bill with grant funding. This isn't going to 
happen unless the Federal Government provides this kind of funding and 
authorization for these programs. I know locally in New Jersey, it will 
not happen unless we do something and provide these types of grants.
  It does disturb me that the Republicans keep trying to politicize 
this because I know that on our committee, the Energy and Commerce 
Committee--and most of the speakers on the other side are on our 
committee--we have worked hard to come together in a bipartisan way to 
try to come up with innovative approaches to the behavioral health 
crisis.
  We did a bill that passed the House 404-20 just a few months ago that 
provides help for mental health and well-being that has ways of trying 
to deal with this crisis. I think that Katie Porter should be commended 
for coming up with another creative and innovative approach for trying 
to deal with this.
  Every day, we know that the crisis is there, and we have to, at a 
Federal level, respond to it. This bill will go very far, in my 
opinion, toward responding to that crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this bill on both sides of 
the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1377, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H8085]]

  

  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________