[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13654-13672]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 13655]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13656]]

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 against 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 
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

[[Page 13657]]

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 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

[[Page 13658]]

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:
  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

[[Page 13659]]

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 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

[[Page 13660]]

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.
  

  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:

[[Page 13661]]



                                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.

[[Page 13662]]

  The bill would strengthen the authority of the Coast Guard to 
intervene 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--
       ``(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;

[[Page 13663]]

       ``(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 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.

[[Page 13664]]

       ``(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 13665]]

     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

[[Page 13666]]

       ``(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 
     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

[[Page 13667]]

     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;
       ``(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).

[[Page 13668]]



     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 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

[[Page 13669]]

     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 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

[[Page 13670]]

     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.
       ``(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''.

[[Page 13671]]

       (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.

       ``(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

[[Page 13672]]

     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

                          ____________________