[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 575-577]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 MENTAL HEALTH AND SAFE COMMUNITIES ACT

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the 800-pound gorilla in the room that people don't want to talk about, 
and that is our broken mental health treatment system in this country.
  Years ago, we made the mistake of institutionalizing people with 
mental illness, and then we made the mistake of deinstitutionalizing 
people with mental illness, with nowhere to go and no access to 
treatment. But I have introduced legislation that I hope will help 
begin this conversation anew, one that we will have a hearing on next 
week in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  The legislation is called, simply, the Mental Health and Safe 
Communities Act. It has two overarching goals. First, it will help 
those suffering from mental illness and their families to find a way 
forward and to get the support that they need. Second, it will equip 
law enforcement, teachers, judges, and people with the knowledge and 
skill sets to spot the early signs of mental illness and give them the 
means by which to respond effectively.
  Sadly, we know that mental illness is a common thread through many 
senseless acts of violence that we have witnessed across the country. 
But this problem is more than about just that. I know some of our 
colleagues say they don't want to talk about how to improve access to 
mental health treatment if it is going to involve any discussion of 
guns, but I don't think we can talk about this topic without talking 
about these incidents of mass violence. But I want to make sure I am 
very clear and to say it is much more than just that.

[[Page 576]]

  It is time for Congress to respond with proven solutions that 
actually work. The President, as is his habit, has offered 
controversial proposals that actually violate the Constitution and 
threaten our rights without solving the problem. To me that is one of 
the reasons why people get so frustrated with Washington, when people 
stand up and say that here is something we ought to do, when it really 
is symbolic in nature and it doesn't actually solve the problem they 
claim to be addressing. And that is true of the President's Executive 
actions on guns.
  Indeed, the AP's headline, when the President made this announcement, 
read: ``Obama measures wouldn't have kept guns from mass shooters.'' In 
other words, the Associated Press makes the point that none of this 
would have solved the actual problem. But the legislation I have 
introduced has a good chance to begin the effort to do that.
  So since the President won't act responsibly and work with Congress, 
Congress must act by itself--first, to build consensus and offer 
solutions, and not just engage in symbolic gestures and more political 
talking points. It is time we focus our efforts on, first and foremost, 
providing support to the mentally ill and their families to make sure, 
first of all, that they are less likely to be a danger to themselves, 
and, secondly, that they won't be a danger to the communities in which 
they live.
  Next Tuesday, we will have that hearing I mentioned at the outset in 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we will look at some of the 
successful models that have proven to be successful in places such as 
Bexar County, San Antonio, TX.
  Like many of our colleagues, I have had the occasion to visit the 
sheriffs, police chiefs, and the jails in our major metropolitan areas. 
Virtually all of them have told me that our jails have become 
warehouses for people with mental illness. When they get out, unless 
their underlying symptoms are treated and unless they are on an 
enforceable treatment plan, compliant with their medication, and 
following the doctor's orders, they are going to end up right back 
where they were. In the absence of effective treatment of their mental 
illness, we know many people with mental illness will self-medicate 
with drugs or alcohol, compounding their problems and becoming what a 
young man in Houston called a ``frequent flyer,'' when referring to 
himself. In other words, he would keep coming back again and again and 
again and again.
  But there are some successful models we can look at, and the results 
are really impressive. Through the reform measures instituted in places 
such as Bexar County, overcrowded jails have been reduced in size, 
taxpayer dollars have been saved, and many lives have been changed for 
the better. The secret is these jurisdictions have realized that we 
have to focus on treating the mentally ill, not just warehousing them 
in our prisons and jails. Criminologists and mental health experts will 
tell you that locking up a mentally ill person without treatment will 
make them even more dangerous to themselves and increase the risk to 
the community.
  Experts will also agree that if we identify those with mental illness 
and divert them to treatment, many of them can be restored to mental 
health, saving lives, increasing public safety, and reducing costs to 
taxpayers.
  There is a great book called ``Crazy,'' written by a gentleman by the 
name of Pete Earley. Pete is a journalist. Unfortunately, he and his 
wife had a son that exhibited mental illness symptoms. It was as a 
result of their dealing with his illness and trying to help him get 
back onto a productive path in life that they encountered the broken 
mental health system that I have described a little bit about. The good 
news is Pete's son is doing well. But it is because he is taking his 
medications, and he recognizes that when he goes off of his medications 
he gets into trouble. Pete will be testifying at our hearing next week, 
and I think he will bring home in a very real way how mental illness 
affects so many lives around the country, and what we can do to 
actually equip those families with additional tools to help them help 
their loved ones.
  The truth is, this all takes cooperation. Indeed, in the criminal 
justice context, it takes collaboration between Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement. It also takes judges, doctors, and families. But 
the good news is there are some models for success. We need to make 
this a priority because so many of the people we encounter today on our 
streets--the homeless--are people who are suffering from mental illness 
of some form or another that could be helped. So many people who are 
jailed for minor criminal offenses are people with mental illness that 
could be helped. I think it behooves all of us to do what we can to 
learn from what actually has proven to work in some of our cities 
around the country, and to try to implement this on a national level.
  In addition to Mr. Earley, we are going to be hearing from Sheriff 
Susan Pamerleau, who has been a champion of mental health reform in the 
San Antonio area.
  But even as the committee begins to consider long overdue mental 
health legislation, I have to confess that I have been disappointed at 
some of the responses by some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, because they say: We don't want to talk about the whole problem; 
we just want to talk about the part of the problem that we want to talk 
about. So if this involves anything related to Second Amendment rights 
or guns, then they don't want to have that conversation. But you can't 
circumscribe the debate or the discussion by carving that out. That has 
to be a part of it. It will be a part of it, whether we like it or not.
  Some of these colleagues on the other side of the aisle have cited a 
provision of my bill that would actually strengthen and clarify the 
definitions regarding the uploading of mental health records to the 
National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Why would anybody 
disagree with making sure that adjudication of mental illness be 
uploaded to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System? That 
is what happened with the Virginia Tech shooter, for example. He had 
been adjudicated mentally ill by Virginia authorities, but because the 
State didn't provide that information to the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System operated by the FBI, he was able to buy a 
firearm without being disqualified, which he should have been, based on 
that adjudication.
  My bill also reauthorizes and strengthens the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System. This is something our colleagues 
across the aisle--and, indeed, all of us--have said we support--a 
background check system. It would work to clarify the scope of the 
mental health records that are required to be uploaded so that there is 
no longer mass confusion among State and local law enforcement as to 
what is required by Federal law. And, because we can't mandate that 
States do this, we need to provide incentives for them to encourage 
them to share these records, because these are a national resource. To 
me, this just makes common sense. Why wouldn't we want States to comply 
with current laws to keep the mental health background check records 
updated? I don't understand the controversy about that.
  I would like to make clear that if there are Members on the other 
side of the aisle willing to work with me on this legislation and 
willing to work with the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee, Senator Alexander, and the ranking member, Senator 
Murray, and with Tim Murphy in the House--who has an important piece of 
legislation that is much more comprehensive in nature but certainly 
deals with this issue as well--and along with Dr. Bill Cassidy here in 
the Senate, there are many of us on a bicameral basis and on a 
bipartisan basis who have said we want to do something about this 
crisis in our country, and that is the mental health crisis.
  What we ought to do is roll up our sleeves, sit down at the table, 
and begin to work through this. I know at

[[Page 577]]

least five Democrats are cosponsoring legislation identical to mine in 
the House of Representatives, so it is up to us to start working to 
find consensus in the Senate.
  This is one of those issues where Republicans have said they would 
like to see something get done, where the Democrats say they would like 
to get something done, and presumably the White House would too. How do 
you explain our not doing what we can do? Even if we can't do 
everything some of us would like to do, why don't we do what we can do?
  I hope we can work together to deal with these reforms and to help 
make our communities safer. It is up to us to put our heads down and 
work diligently for the American people and come up with solutions for 
struggling families--families struggling with a loved one with mental 
illness and who don't know where to turn. I look forward to hearing 
more about some of the proposed solutions next week during this hearing 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee and working with all of our 
colleagues to try to come up with the best answers we can.

                          ____________________