Mental Health Justice Act of 2022

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8542, the Mental Health Justice Act of 2022.

``In lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.'' I am going to say it again, because that is the exact language used repeatedly in the bill. ``In lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is dangerous. This legislation gives Federal grants to States, Tribes, and localities to hire mental health providers to respond to certain emergencies involving an individual with an intellectual disability or developmental disability; an individual experiencing a mental health crisis; or an individual under the influence.

There is nothing wrong with mental health professionals assisting law enforcement in appropriate circumstances. Communities around the country are adopting these models with law enforcement, mental health providers, and prosecutors.

I would be open to supporting legislation limited to training mental health providers to assist law enforcement in appropriate situations, but that is not what this bill does.

A sentence in the bill begins by stating that ``mental health providers may coordinate with law enforcement.'' Sounds acceptable, but it continues to read, ``which may include operating independently'' from law enforcement.

Let's be clear. The purpose of this legislation is to provide financial incentives to deploy mental health providers to inherently dangerous situations in lieu of law enforcement and operating independently of law enforcement. That is a policy that will endanger the mental health professional, the suspect, the person experiencing the mental health crisis, and the person who called 911.

A crime scene or a home experiencing a domestic violence dispute is not the setting to provide mental health care.

In the first half of 2022, the leading circumstance of law enforcement officers killed with firearms was in response to domestic violence calls.

Nobody can confidently tell us they know in advance which domestic violence call should get a mental health response instead of a law enforcement response.

Mental health professionals are not trained for the inevitable physical confrontations that occur in these situations. The priority in an emergency situation is to secure the scene and all individuals involved, which is a law enforcement function. Once the scene is secure, I will be the first person calling for mental health services, whether it is addiction-related, trauma, or mental illness.

There is a time and a place for mental health care, but it is not rolling up to a scene without the training and tools to defend yourself and at-risk civilians. A first responder typically does not have the time and information to know when it is appropriate to provide mental health services.

Who are we expecting to make the distinction on mental health? The 911 dispatcher? An elected official inserted into the emergency dispatch process?

Every additional second layer of bureaucracy will cost lives. The risks are even greater in rural parts of the country, like my home State of North Dakota, where backup is often measured in hours, not minutes.

Ask a mental health provider if they want to be deployed without law enforcement at 1 a.m. on the side of Highway 85 between Dickinson and Watford City.

As if the public safety concerns aren't enough, the bill provides additional financial incentives for the actions that may not be in the best interest of the individual, the community, or comply with established laws of the jurisdiction.

The bill provides additional awards for referrals to community-based, voluntary support services without consideration of the specific needs and circumstances.

Community-based care could be the appropriate setting, but there are circumstances where inpatient care or incarceration are simply more appropriate.

The bill also provides incentives for decarceration rates of certain groups of individuals. Again, decarceration may make sense at times. I have advocated for it in lots of circumstances, but it is case specific. I have seen it before. Police arrest on a domestic violence charge, release, and respond to a murder 2 hours later.

These decisions should be made at the local level based on specific circumstances with State and local input.

This bill attempts to treat the subject of the 911 call with fairness and dignity. That is something we should all strive toward. The flip side is that this bill does not account for the person who made the 911 call.

These policies will not work in the real world. It will only make dangerous situations more dangerous. The unintended consequences of this bill are extensive, and emergency situations will become more dangerous than they already are.

This is why we need committee process to work through these challenging issues. Criminal justice reform is hard. There are lots and lots of unintended consequences. I have legitimately worked on it my entire adult life. But my Democratic colleagues skipped that process because their focus is on frontline elections in the House, not frontline communities battling rising crime rates.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the National District Attorneys Association in opposition to this legislation. National District Attorneys Association, Washington, DC, September 21, 2022. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: I am reaching out on behalf of the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), the oldest and largest national organization representing state and local prosecutors in the country. With more than 5,500 members nationwide, NDAA is recognized as the leading source of national expertise on the prosecution function and is a valuable resource for the media, academia, government, and community leaders. Today, I write with concern about H.R. 8542, the Mental Health Justice Act, as part of the policing package moving through Congress.

NDAA is strongly supportive of increasing funding for our partner law enforcement agencies, implementing new grants focused on reducing community violence, and assisting investigators in solving cold cases to better support victims of violent crime. However, prosecutors have significant concerns about the fourth legislative proposal which would establish new grants to ``hire, employ, train, and dispatch mental health professionals to respond in lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.''

Currently, law enforcement, prosecutors, and mental health professionals across the country are proactively and organically forming multidisciplinary teams and engaging in the co-responder model to better handle incidents involving individuals suffering from mental health crises. For example, jurisdictions have paired law enforcement officers, mental health clinicians, and community advocates together when responding to an individual's mental health emergency called into a 911 dispatcher. This partnership is the first line of response and is then followed by coordination on the back end between additional health professionals and prosecutors to ensure a plan can be enacted to provide the individual in crisis with a plan of rehabilitation that also ensures there is no public safety risk to the community. The language in the Mental Health Justice Act would undermine these collaborative efforts which have been shown to reduce violent crime, limit harm to responding law enforcement officers, and improve community trust in the criminal justice system.

Further, the legislation takes unprecedented steps to impose new grant conditions that require mental health professionals and community grantees to decrease incarceration and restrict partnership with law enforcement agencies. NDAA has long stated that any diversion or rehabilitation program, such as those led by co-responder teams, must include tools to ensure consequences are imposed if there are incidents of re-offending by the individual receiving treatment. Local communities are best suited to decide which models work best and these onerous new requirements could restrict or discourage programs from forming that serve the dual purpose of rehabilitation and community safety. These new conditions would undermine this principal and require our mental health partners to create new barriers between law enforcement and the clinical professionals working together to improve our Nation's response to ongoing mental health emergencies.

For these reasons, NDAA urges the House of Representatives to strongly reconsider including the Mental Health Justice Act as part of the important police funding package moving through the chamber. We thank you for your tireless efforts to improve the criminal justice system and look forward to working alongside you and your staff to ensure law enforcement and the mental health community have the tools needed to keep our communities safe. Sincerely, John J. Flynn, NDAA President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ARMSTRONG. The only time you know a traffic stop is routine is when it is over. The only time you know it is only a mental health service call is after the scene is secure.

Far too often, and more complicated, are addiction-related issues and mental health-related issues, but none of those preclude the fact that a weapon is there or domestic violence has occurred.

When you continue to coordinate this stuff for cash-strapped departments across the country with decarceration, you will have real consequences.

For well over 25 years, victims' rights groups have fought all across this country to get domestic violence offenders held for the weekend on misdemeanor charges, and there are reasons for that. You need them to sober up; you need everybody to cool off; and victims need the opportunity to get out of the house.

These bills do nothing to do any of those things. These bills will make communities more dangerous from one end of the country to the other.

This bill sounds really good. Cooperation, coordination, all of those words sound fantastic. I will be the first one championing mental health and addiction services to anybody in lieu of custody, in lieu of prison, in lieu of jail time, but I want to do it after the scene is secure and we know there is no weapon onsite and nobody is in danger, when we know the victim is not in danger, the community is not in danger, and the person who is experiencing addiction, mental health, whatever crisis it is, is not in danger.

This bill doesn't do that. This bill does the opposite of that. We should reject it and get back to work on the hard work of passing reasonable, real, strong criminal justice reform.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source