[DOCID: f:sr183.110]
From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
Calendar No. 382
110th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 110-183
======================================================================
SCHOOL SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007
_______
September 21, 2007.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Leahy, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 2084]
The Committee on the Judiciary, having considered an
original bill (S. 2084), to promote school safety, improved law
enforcement, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon
without amendment, and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose of the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act
of 2007..........................................................1
II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration..................9
III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill..........................12
IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................19
V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation....................................20
VI. Conclusion......................................................20
VII. Supplemental Views of Senator Kennedy...........................21
VIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........26
I. Purpose of the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of
2007
The Judiciary Committee considered the School Safety and
Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007 (SSLEIA) as an original
bill on August 2, 2007. The bill, as amended, is a legislative
package combining a number of initiatives, with some
modifications. They are: (1) the School Safety Enhancements Act
of 2007 (S. 1217), (2) the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of
2007 (H.R. 2640), (3) the Equity in Law Enforcement Act (S.
1448), (4) the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007 (S.
376), (5) the Prevention Resources for Eliminating Criminal
Activity in our Neighborhoods (PRECAUTION) Act (S. 1521), and
(6) the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007 (S. 735).
The bill provides a responsible and effective congressional
response to school incidents that have occurred in the recent
past and, in particular, to the tragedy that took place on
April 16, 2007 on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University (Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia.
The bill is intended in part to address the recurring problem
of violence in our schools through additional support to law
enforcement in both public and private educational settings,
and to make needed improvements to the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System. Specifically, the bill seeks
to enlist the States as partners in the dissemination of
critical information about the purchasers of firearms, to
distribute federal dollars to improve the safety and security
of our schools from kindergarten through higher education, to
provide equitable benefits to campus safety officers protecting
private colleges and universities, and to evaluate effectively
and implement crime prevention programs in school settings, and
elsewhere. The bill also makes improvements to two existing
laws: it streamlines certification procedures under existing
federal law that permit qualified law enforcement to carry
concealed firearms across State lines, and strengthens the
federal terrorist hoax statute to punish disruptive and costly
``false alarms'' that can create turmoil in schools and on
college campuses.
The Committee is mindful that no legislative response will
be a panacea for school violence in this country, but the bill
addresses some of the most critical school safety and law
enforcement needs in the wake of the Virginia Tech
tragedy.<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\On August 22, 2007, three internal review committees
commissioned by Virginia Tech President Charles W. Steger to study the
Virginia Tech incident presented reports recommending specific campus
safety improvements, among other proposals. The committees'
recommendations include the installation of interior classroom door
locks, enhanced communications systems to better alert students to
dangerous situations, and the establishment of a public safety building
on campus. The bill's new grant program for higher education would
permit funding for these critical safety initiatives.
In addition, on August 30, 2007, a panel of experts commissioned by
Virginia Governor Tom Kaine (the Virginia Tech Review Panel) issued its
findings based on a four-month long investigation of the incident and
its aftermath. The Virginia Tech Review Panel offered more than 70
recommendations directed to colleges, universities, mental health
providers, law enforcement officials, emergency service providers,
public officials, and law makers. The bill specifically responds to a
number of recommendations from the Review Panel related to improve
school safety planning and reporting information to the national
instant criminal background check system. See Mass Shootings at
Virginia Tech April 16, 2007: Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel
reported to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia,
August 2007 at Chapters II (p. 19), VI (p. 76), and VIII (p. 99). The
Virginia Tech Review Panel report has a broad scope with many specific
recommendations and will be subject to additional review and
consideration by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2007, a Virginia Tech senior named Seung-Hui
Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 25 in two separate
incidents on the Virginia Tech campus, before committing
suicide. The Virginia Tech massacre was the deadliest to have
occurred on a U.S. college campus. Cho killed his first two
victims at around 7:15 a.m. at a dormitory building.
Approximately two hours later, Choentered a classroom building,
chained the three main entrance doors shut, walked up to the second
floor classrooms, and began shooting teachers and students. After an
approximately 9-minute rampage that resulted in an additional 30 deaths
and dozens of injuries, Cho turned one of his weapons on himself just
as law enforcement officials finally gained entrance to the classroom
building.
Two years before these tragic events, Cho had been
adjudicated mentally ill by a Virginia special justice after
having been accused of stalking two female students, which
prohibited him from possessing a firearm under federal law.
Nevertheless, he was able to purchase two weapons that were
used in the massacre after he passed the background check. The
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is the
federal law enforcement database containing the names of
persons prohibited from purchasing firearms, and it is designed
to prevent such purchases. The Virginia Tech incident
underscored the need for improvements. In addition, the
incident revealed that schools are soft targets for criminals
and for would-be terrorists. In most cases they employ only a
small number of security personnel and have only basic security
measures in place to guard against deadly attacks. Indeed, it
has been reported that one of the crucial security failures
during the Virginia Tech incident was that the classrooms Cho
entered during his rampage had no interior door locks.\2\
Students and faculty were, therefore, unable to secure
themselves in the classrooms while awaiting the arrival of law
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Dena Potter, Experts Say Inside Locks on Classroom Doors
Would Save Lives, Associated Press, July 29, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. NEED FOR LEGISLATION AND BILL SUMMARY
1. School safety--kindergarten through higher education
The Virginia Tech incident cast light on how vulnerable our
campuses are to attack by a person or group of people intent on
inflicting mass casualties. It also highlights how small a role
the Federal Government currently plays in helping to secure
institutions of higher education. Congress mandates through the
Clery Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f), that all colleges and
universities receiving federal financial aid collect and
publicly disclose information about crime on or near campus.\3\
But according to the Congressional Research Service, there is
currently no federal funding targeted to help approximately
2,500 colleges and universities comply with existing federal
campus security requirements, let alone to support campus
safety initiatives.\4\ Around 15 million students attend
institutions of higher education in the United States, but
schools currently must rely on sub-grants from State or local
governments to defray the costs of ensuring the safety of
students, or must fund school safety initiatives and
improvements entirely themselves. At a time when the risk of
terrorist attacks and other violence on campus has never been
higher, the Federal Government must play a more significant
role in securing our schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Eastern Michigan University's failure to timely inform its
student body of a murder that took place on campus has recently raised
questions about the level of compliance with the Clery Act's
requirements. See Campus Security is a Crime, USA Today, July 23, 2007,
at A10.
\4\See Rebecca R. Skinner and Gail McCallion, School and Campus
Safety Programs and Requirements in the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and Higher Education Act, Congressional Research Service,
April 27, 2007, at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Students attending our elementary and secondary schools
face many of the same dangers as those attending institutions
of higher education, and there are an additional 55 million
students enrolled in elementary and secondary schools
nationwide.\5\ For example, on August 24, 2006, an ex-convict
shot four people in two homes and an elementary school in the
rural community of Essex, Vermont, before unsuccessfully trying
to kill himself with two shots to the head.\6\ And on October
2, 2006, a gunman killed 10 Amish schoolgirls at Wolf Rock
School in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, before committing
suicide.\7\ There is an existing federal grant program to
enhance security for elementary and secondary schools,\8\ but
grants from that program cannot currently be used to fund
capital improvements by school districts, or to implement more
specific safety-oriented measures, such as the creation of tip
lines and the installation of surveillance equipment, to report
and deter potential dangerous situations. In addition, the
funding of that program has not been significantly adjusted
since the program's creation to reflect the increased risks
faced by our school-aged children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See id. at 1.
\6\See Deadly Rampage in Quiet Vermont Town, Boston Globe, Aug. 25,
2006, at A1.
\7\See Raymond McCaffrey and Michael E. Ruane, An Amish Community
Grieves for Its Little Ones, The Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2006.
\8\See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3797a (the ``Secure Our Schools'' grant
program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I of SSLEIA (the School Safety Enhancements Act of
2007) takes concrete steps to improve school safety both at the
elementary and secondary school level (K-12), and for college
and university campuses. The K-12 portion would expand the
Secure Our Schools grant program by adding tip lines,
surveillance equipment, and capital improvements to schools as
approved uses for the grant program, and by increasing annual
appropriation authorization for this purpose from $30,000,000
to $50,000,000. This increase in federal funding is necessary
to ease the burden on local school districts for implementing
security enhancements. These improvements will make our
elementary and secondary schools safer by funding much-needed
infrastructure improvements, and they will empower students to
report potentially dangerous situations to school
administrators before they occur. The Secure Our Schools
program has, since its inception in 2000, delivered millions of
dollars to school districts nationwide to make critical safety
improvements. Adding capital improvements, among other new
uses, for these funds, and raising the level of funding to
allow for greater participation of school districts, will help
schools make significant infrastructure changes to include the
most current safety and technology improvements.
Through its higher education component, Title I also
authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to establish
and operate a National Center for Campus Public Safety, to be
funded at $2.75 million annually. The Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services recommended the
establishment of a National Center for Campus Public Safety
following its 2005 summit, but that recommendation was never
implemented by Congress.\9\ Funding this Center will support
research as well as hands on training for campus safety
officers at our nation's colleges and universities that will
put campus safety officers in the best position to
appropriately respond to future dangerous situations on campus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\See National Summit on Campus Public Safety, U.S. Department of
Justice COPS Office, at 7 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I also creates a new Justice Department-administered
matching grant program to help pay for improved campus security
at institutions of higher education, with annual authorized
appropriations of $50,000,000. This would be the first federal
grant program that will permit institutions of higher education
to apply directly for federal grants. The Committee recognizes
that colleges and universities serve and protect not only their
students, but also the wider community, which oftentimes
participates in and contributes to events on campus. Campuses
also contain some of our most prized and sensitive assets, such
as world-class research facilities and even nuclear reactors.
There is a strong federal interest in ensuring the safety and
security of colleges and universities, and the creation of a
new grant program benefiting institutions of higher education
is an efficient and effective way to enhance the protection of
the millions of students attending colleges and universities
nationwide, as well as the surrounding communities.\10\ The
Committee believes that significant investment in the safety of
our nation's young people, and in the protection of the vital
resources associated with all educational institutions, is
warranted and necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Associations (IACLEA) and campus police forces from around the country
have strongly endorsed the creation of a National Center for Public
Safety and the new matching grant program for institutions of higher
education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Federal/State improvement in NICS reporting
The Virginia Tech incident also demonstrated the need for
State and federal collaboration and information sharing to
ensure that those who are not legally eligible to purchase
firearms will be prevented from doing so. The Virginia Tech
incident made clear that the NICS reporting requirements must
be reevaluated and improved.
Title II of the bill incorporates the NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007 (H.R. 2640),\11\ which makes substantial
improvements to the NICS system. The senseless loss of life at
Virginia Tech revealed deep flaws in the transfer of
information related to gun purchases between the States and the
Federal Government, and this bill provides a comprehensive
approach to correct those and other vulnerabilities within
NICS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\H.R. 2640 was passed by the House by voice vote on June 13,
2007, and reported to the Senate the next day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System was
created with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-159), which mandated the
creation of a national instant background check system. Under
federal law, individuals are prohibited from possessing a
firearm based on certain disqualifying information, such as
being a convicted felon, a fugitive, a drug addict, committed
to a mental institution, or an illegal alien.\12\ Under the
Brady law, a licensed firearm dealer is required to check NICS
prior to any firearm transfer to make sure a person is not
disqualified from possessing a firearm under federal law. Every
year approximately 8 million such inquires are made to NICS,
and approximately 1.9% of potential buyers (896,000) are denied
on the basis of disqualifying information. This is one of the
primary tools for preventing felons and other disqualified
persons from obtaining firearms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Under Section 922(g), it is unlawful to possess, ship, or
receive a firearm in interstate commerce for any person (1) who has
been convicted of a felony offense, (2) who is a fugitive from justice,
(3) who is an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance,
(4) who has been adjudicated a mental defective or has been committed
to a mental institution, (5) who is illegally or unlawfully in the
United States, (6) who has been dishonorably discharged from the
military, (7) who has renounced their U.S. citizenship, (8) who is
subject to a domestic violence restraining order, or (9) who has been
convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. See 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 922(g). It is also unlawful for any person who has been indicted
for a felony offense to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in
interstate commerce. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NICS system, however, is only as good as the records
provided by federal and State authorities to its databases, and
it continues to suffer from significant gaps. For example, more
than 90 percent of disqualifying mental health records are not
in NICS, and only two out of 50 States regularly report mental
health records to NICS. Similarly, NICS has incomplete records
or cannot access records electronically for many other
categories of disqualifying information. This can cause
significant errors and delays within NICS, and as many as 3,000
people each year pass the NICS check even though they are
disqualified from possessing a firearm. This bill is needed to
close those gaps and to improve the effectiveness of NICS.
This bill, for the first time, creates a legal regime where
disqualifying mental health records, both at the State and
federal level, will more effectively be reported into NICS. The
bill requires all federal agencies to report mental health and
all other disqualifying records to NICS, as well as regularly
correct, update, and remove records as necessary to make NICS
accurate. The bill also directs federal agencies to develop
relief from disabilities programs so that those who recover
from disqualifying mental health conditions, drug addiction, or
who become citizens can be removed from NICS.
For the States, this bill creates significant incentives to
report all disqualifying information to NICS and to improve the
electronic, automated reporting of this information. The
primary incentive is a waiver of a 10% matching requirement for
federal grant money to improve NICS once a State reports 90% of
its disqualifying records. The bill also provides two grant
programs for States to improve their information sharing
systems and to make sure their records are electronically
available in NICS. The penalties are graduated over time to
give the Attorney General the authority to withhold up to 5% of
a State's Byrne grant funding if the States do not meet the 90%
compliance target.
To accomplish these goals, the bill authorizes up to $400
million a year for 5 years to give States the ability to make
the costly technological improvements necessary to improve
NICS. These resources are necessary to make sure federal and
State government work in a partnership to improve NICS, and
that States do not face unfunded mandates.
3. Equalization of benefits for public and private campus law
enforcement
Many of the first responders to the Virginia Tech incident
were campus safety officers.\13\ Their response demonstrated
the critical role that campus safety plays as a first line of
defense in protecting college and university campuses. Yet
under current federal law, campus safety officers employed at
private institutions of higher education do not have access to
critical death and disability benefits or to life-saving
devices to which their publicly-employed colleagues have
access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\See David Maraniss, ``That Was the Desk I Chose to Die Under,''
The Washington Post, April 19, 2007 (identifying Virginia Tech Police
Chief Wendell Flinchum as conducting the initial investigation into the
early morning shootings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title III of SSLEIA (the Equity in Law Enforcement Act)
remedies the inequality between public and private safety
officers by making sworn law enforcement officers who work for
private institutions of higher education, as well as rail
carriers, eligible for death and disability benefits, and for
funds administered under the Byrne Grant program and the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership program. Providing this equitable
treatment is in the best interest of our nation's educators and
students, and will serve to place the support of the Federal
Government behind the dedicated law enforcement officers who
serve and protect private colleges and universities across the
country.
4. Strategies for curbing school-based violence
The Virginia Tech incident also demonstrated that the
Government must aggressively pursue the most effective
strategies to reduce violence in schools beginning at the
elementary school level, so that educators and law enforcement
can better identify and prevent dangerous situations at our
schools.
Title V of SSLEIA incorporates the PRECAUTION Act. The
inclusion of the PRECAUTION Act in this bill reinforces the
importance of incorporating crime prevention and intervention
strategies into any crime-fighting plan, especially those
directed at protecting our schools and children. This title
creates a national commission to evaluate existing information
on crime prevention and intervention strategies and identify
those strategies that are most ready for replication in
communities across the country, including school-based
programs. In the course of its work, the national commission
created by this provision will identify the most successful
violence prevention and intervention strategies that schools
can employ to prevent crime, and will issue a public report
that local law enforcement and school boards can turn to when
evaluating the most effective ways to keep their students safe.
In addition, this title directs the National Institute of
Justice to administer a grant program to fund pilot programs in
promising areas of crime prevention and intervention
programming identified by the commission as meriting further
research and development. This grant program will help develop
the sorts of cutting-edge prevention and intervention programs
that can be utilized in schools, and will result in a second
report from the commission detailing the results of those pilot
programs and how schools across the country can implement them.
This title authorizes a total of $24 million over five years
for the commission's operations and the pilot programs. The
PRECAUTION Act's endorsements include the National Sheriffs'
Association, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, the Wisconsin Chiefs
of Police Association, the Council for Excellence in
Government, the American Society of Criminology, and the
Consortium of Social Science Associations.
5. Improvements to existing laws governing concealed carry permits and
terrorist hoaxes
The bill makes changes to two existing laws--one
establishing protocols governing when qualified active and
retired law enforcement officers may lawfully carry concealed
weapons across State lines, and the other improving on an
existing terrorist hoax statute--which the Committee believes
will also meaningfully improve the safety and security of the
public.
Title IV of SSLEIA (the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act
of 2007) revises the procedure by which qualified retired law
enforcement officers may be certified under existing law (18
U.S.C. Sec. 926C) to carry concealed weapons across State
lines. To accommodate varying administrative circumstances from
State to State, the title adds flexibility to the way in which
a retired qualified officer may obtain the required
certification demonstrating that the individual has met active
duty standards for concealed firearm carriage. For example,
where a State law enforcement agency cannot conduct the
required testing of a retired officer, that officer may obtain
the testing and certification from a firearms instructor
certified by the State to test active duty officers.
This title also amends existing law (18 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 926B, 926C) to clarify that Amtrak and executive
branch police officers are law enforcement officers for
purposes of LEOSA. Finally, this title reduces from 15 to 10
years the length of service requirement applicable to retired
law enforcement officers seeking certification to carry
concealed weapons, and no longer requires that an officer be
entitled to ``non-forfeitable'' benefits for purposes of LEOSA.
Congress passed the 2003 bill in recognition of the fact
that law enforcement officers are never off duty and face
lasting dangers due to the nature of their profession. It
serves the public when we permit qualified officers, with a
demonstrated commitment to law enforcement and no adverse
employment history, to protect themselves, their families, and
the public.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\This is the second time this year that a bipartisan majority of
the Judiciary Committee has voted to report favorably the provisions
included in Title IV of the comprehensive bill. These provisions amend
the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act that the Judiciary Committee
favorably reported, the Senate passed, and that Congress enacted in
2004. The supplemental views fail to identify even a single instance
where the interstate privileges at the heart of LEOSA have produced
negative results. Rather, the two tragic examples therein discussed
conflate criminal intent and action with lawful firearms possession.
The reality is that 48 States have laws that permit some form of
concealed firearms carriage for any eligible citizen. The
clarifications of LEOSA in Title IV, which refine the existing
interstate concealed carry privileges limited to trained law
enforcement officers, cannot be said to greatly alter what the vast
majority of States have already decided is an appropriate privilege for
private citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Title VI of SSLEIA incorporates the Terrorist Hoax
Improvements Act of 2007, which would improve current law
relating to hoaxes about terrorist threats, and would
strengthen and expand criminal penalties to punish hoaxes.
Specifically, it (1) expands 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1038, the terrorism
hoax statute, so that it punishes hoaxes about any terrorist
offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 (the U.S.
Code's official list of terrorist offenses); (2) increases the
maximum penalties for hoaxes about the death or injury of a
U.S. soldier during wartime; (3) expands current law's civil
liability provisions to allow first responders and others to
seek reimbursement from a party who perpetrates a hoax and
becomes aware that first responders believe that a terrorist
offense is taking place but fails to inform authorities that no
such event has occurred; and (4) clarifies that threatening
communications are punishable under federal law even if they
are directed at an organization rather than a natural person.
As evidenced by the aftermath of the Virginia Tech tragedy,
colleges and universities must be able to respond to dangerous
situations in an effective and disciplined way. This component
of SSLEIA will deter hoaxes on campus and elsewhere, which will
better enable first responders to do their jobs
effectively.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\A Committee Report for the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of
2007 was filed after that bill was first reported out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee in May 2007. See Senate Report 110-061 (May 4,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration
A. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SSLEIA COMPONENTS
1. Title I--School Safety Improvements Act
In 2000, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into
law, legislation including the Secure Our Schools grant program
(P.L. 106-386). On February 17, 2007, Senator Boxer introduced
in the Senate S. 677, titled the School Safety Enhancements Act
of 2007, with seven co-sponsors. The bill would make
improvements and increase funding to the Secure our Schools
grant program. OnApril 25, 2007, Senator Boxer re-introduced
the School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007 as S. 1217, with six co-
sponsors, to include a higher education component.
In its first title, SSLEIA incorporates the K-12 component
of S. 1217, with slight modifications. SSLEIA replaces the
higher education component of S. 1217 with two new sections
that address higher education safety needs within the Judiciary
Committee's jurisdiction.
2. Title II--NICS Amendment Improvements Act of 2007
On June 11, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy
introduced the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (H.R.
2640), with 17 co-sponsors, in response to the incident at
Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. On June 13, 2007, the
bill was passed by voice vote in the House.
3. Title III--Equity in Law Enforcement Act
On May 22, 2007, Senator Reed introduced the Equity in Law
Enforcement Act, S. 1448. The Equity in Law Enforcement Act was
incorporated in its entirety, unmodified, into Title III of
SSLEIA.
4. Title IV--Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007
In 2004, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into
law, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-
277). The Senate version of the bill (S. 253) was co-sponsored
by 70 Senators and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee
on March 6, 2003 by a vote of 18-1 (Senator Kennedy
dissenting). It was agreed to in the House of Representatives
by a voice vote on June 23, 2004, and passed by unanimous
consent in the Senate on July 7, 2004. The President signed the
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 into law on June
22, 2004.
The legislative history of the Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act of 2003 is recounted in Senate Report 108-029.
Chairman Leahy introduced S. 376, the Law Enforcement
Officers Safety Act of 2007, on January 24, 2007. The bill was
first listed on the Committee's agenda on March 1, 2007. The
measure was held over for a number of weeks until May 15, 2007,
when the Committee reported the bill favorably by voice vote
and without amendment. A Committee report on this bill has been
filed as Senate Report 110-150. Its provisions were
incorporated into Title IV of the bill.
5. Title V--PRECAUTION Act
Senators Feingold and Specter introduced the PRECAUTION
Act, S. 1521, on May 24, 2007. The PRECAUTION Act was
incorporated into Title V of the bill.
6. Title VI--Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act
Senator Kennedy introduced the Terrorist Hoax Improvements
Act of 2007, S. 735, on April 2, 2007, with six co-
sponsors.\16\ The bill was first listed on the Judiciary
Committee's agenda on April 12, 2007, and the Committee adopted
an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the bill without
objection. A Committee report on this bill has been filed as
Senate Report 110-61. The bill has been reported to the full
Senate and its provisions are incorporated into Title VI of the
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\There was no hearing on this bill in Committee, but on
September 13, 2004, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Technology and Homeland Security held a hearing where witnesses
testified about the need for strong federal laws to punish hoaxes about
terrorist threats. The Justice Department witness commented at the
hearing that as a result of post-9/11 hoaxes, ``[m]any people were
inconvenienced, and emergency responders were forced to waste a great
deal of time and effort.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF SSLEIA
On August 2, 2007, the Committee originated the School
Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007 as an
original bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill was
first listed on the Committee's agenda on July 5th. The
Committee considered the bill on August 2nd, a quorum was
present, and the Committee voted unanimously to order the bill
to be reported to the Senate, as amended.
During the Committee's consideration of the bill, 10
amendments were offered. Six amendments received a roll call
vote. Four amendments were adopted without objection. The
amendments are noted below, with an asterisk indicating a vote
by proxy.
Senator Hatch offered an amendment to reduce the federal
matching share for the K-12 and higher education grant programs
contained in Title I from 80% to 50%, and the amendment was
accepted on a rollcall vote. The vote record is as follows:
Yeas (10): Brownback (Kan.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn
(Texas),* Feinstein (Calif.),* Graham (S.C.),* Grassley (Iowa),
Hatch (Utah), Kyl (Ariz.), Sessions, J. (Ala.), Specter (Pa.).
Nays (9): Biden (Del.),* Cardin (Md.), Durbin (Ill.),
Feingold (Wis.), Kennedy, E. (Mass.), Kohl (Wis.),* Leahy
(Vt.), Schumer (N.Y.), Whitehouse (R.I.).*
Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to require the use of
``microstamping'' technology by manufacturers of certain
firearms. This technology purports to be a superior identifier
of handguns totraditional serial numbers. The amendment was
rejected on a roll call vote. The vote record is as follows:
Yeas (8): Biden (Del.),* Cardin (Md.),* Durbin (Ill.),
Feinstein (Calif.),* Kennedy, E. (Mass.), Kohl (Wis.),* Schumer
(N.Y.), Whitehouse (R.I.).
Nays (11): Brownback (Kan.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn
(Texas),* Feingold (Wis.), Graham (S.C.), Grassley (Iowa),
Hatch (Utah), Kyl (Ariz.), Leahy (Vt.), Sessions, J. (Ala.),
Specter (Pa.).
Senator Kennedy offered an amendment that would have
altered and restricted the eligibility requirements for
officers to be certified for interstate firearms carriage under
LEOSA. The amendment was rejected on a rollcall vote. The vote
record is as follows:
Yeas (9): Biden (Del.),* Cardin (Md.),* Durbin (Ill.),
Feingold (Wis.), Feinstein (Calif.),* Kennedy, E. (Mass.), Kohl
(Wis.),* Schumer (N.Y.), Whitehouse (R.I.).
Nays (10): Brownback (Kan.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn
(Texas), Graham (S.C.), Grassley (Iowa), Hatch (Utah), Kyl
(Ariz.), Leahy (Vt.), Sessions, J. (Ala.),* Specter (Pa.).
Senator Kennedy offered an amendment that would have
restricted the range of standards by which a retired officer
could be certified for interstate firearms carriage under
LEOSA. The amendment was rejected on a rollcall vote. The vote
record is as follows:
Yeas (6): Coburn (Okla.), Cardin (Md.), Feingold (Wis.),*
Kennedy, E. (Mass.), Kohl (Wis.),* Whitehouse (R.I.).
Nays (13): Biden (Del.),* Brownback (Kan.), Cornyn (Texas),
Durbin (Ill.), Feinstein (Calif.),* Graham (S.C.), Grassley
(Iowa), Hatch (Utah), Kyl (Ariz.), Leahy (Vt.), Schumer
(N.Y.),* Sessions, J. (Ala.), Specter (Pa.).
Senator Kyl offered an amendment that would have reduced
the amount of authorized funding for the improvement of NICS.
The amendment was rejected on a rollcall vote. The vote record
is as follows:
Yeas (9): Brownback (Kan.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn (Texas),
Graham (S.C.), Grassley (Iowa), Hatch (Utah), Kyl (Ariz.),
Sessions, J. (Ala.), Specter (Pa.).
Nays (10): Biden (Del.),* Cardin (Md.), Durbin (Ill.),
Feingold (Wis.),* Feinstein (Calif.),* Kennedy, E. (Mass.),
Kohl (Wis.),* Leahy (Vt.), Schumer (N.Y.),* Whitehouse (R.I.).
Senator Coburn offered an amendment that would have
prohibited the Attorney General from waiving a State's 50-50
matching requirement for school safety funding. The amendment
was rejected on a rollcall vote. The vote record is as follows:
Yeas (9): Brownback (Kan.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn
(Texas),* Graham (S.C.), Grassley (Iowa), Hatch (Utah), Kyl
(Ariz.), Sessions, J. (Ala.), Specter (Pa.).
Nays (10): Biden (Del.),* Cardin (Md.), Durbin (Ill.),
Feingold (Wis.),* Feinstein (Calif.),* Kennedy, E. (Mass.),
Kohl (Wis.),* Leahy (Vt.), Schumer (N.Y.),* Whitehouse (R.I.).
Senator Feinstein offered an amendment to Title II
clarifying that a department or agency may provide information
about persons who have been adjudicated to be mentally
incompetent to stand trial, or who were acquitted by reason of
insanity, to the Attorney General. The amendment was accepted
without objection.
Senator Coburn offered an amendment to Title II clarifying
that all NICS reports be available to U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, and the amendment was accepted without
objection.
Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to Title III mandating
a Government Accountability Office study of qualified active
and retired law enforcement officers carrying concealed
weapons, and the amendment was accepted.
Finally, Senator Kyl offered an amendment to attach the
Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007 (S. 735) to the
original bill, and the amendment was accepted and added to the
bill at Title VI.
III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents
This section provides that the legislation may be cited as
the ``School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of
2007.''
Title I, Sec. 101. Short title
This section provides that the legislation may be cited as
the ``School Safety Enhancements Act.''
Subtitle A--Elementary and Secondary Education Safety Enhancements
Sec. 111. Grant program for school security
This section expands the ``Secure Our Schools'' grant
program for elementary and secondary schools to add to the list
of acceptable uses of surveillance equipment, hotlines and tip
lines, and capital improvements. It also creates an interagency
task force to develop advisory guidelines for schools, and
mandates collaboration between school professionals and law
enforcement in making grant applications. Finally, this section
increases the amount of funding allowed for school safety
grants to $50 million for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Sec. 112. Applications
This section provides that grant applications must be
accompanied by a report prepared in consultation with senior
school professionals and senior law enforcement officers
demonstrating that the proposed use of grant funds will be
effective, consistent with the program's objectives, and
individualized to the needs of each school district.
Sec. 113. Authorization of appropriations
This section strikes the existing authorization of
$30,000,000 and replaces it with an increased authorization of
$50,000,000 for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Subtitle B--Campus Public Safety Enhancement
Sec. 121. National Center for Campus Public Safety
This section authorizes the Attorney General, through the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, to award grants
for the creation of a National Center for Campus Public Safety.
The section sets forth the objectives for the National Center,
provides for interagency collaboration on the National Center's
creation, and funds the National Center at $2.75 million for
fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Sec. 122. Grants for campus law enforcement
This section authorizes the Attorney General, through the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, to make grants
to institutions of higher education or consortia of such
institutions for the purpose of improving security at those
institutions. The section provides for the federal share to be
set at 50% of costs, and includes a waiver provision for grant
applicants with financial need. The section sets forth the
application criteria, specifies the permissible uses of funds,
provides for an annual report from the Attorney General to
Congress on activities under the program, and provides for
$50,000,000 in funding for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Title II, Sec. 201. Short title
This section provides that the legislation may be cited as
the ``NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.''
Sec. 202. Findings
This section summarizes the Congressional findings
supporting the need for this legislation. In particular,
Congress finds that more than 20,000,000 criminal records are
not currently accessible by the NICS and, even though the NICS
is automated, there can be delays where records are not
electronically available to the FBI or other authorities.
Congress also finds that the NICS system can be improved by
creating more automated access to disqualifying records.
Sec. 203. Definitions
This section defines the terms consistent with their
meanings in Sections 921 and 922 of Title 18, as well as the
current federal regulations implementing those sections.
Subtitle A--Transmittal of Records
Sec. 211. Enhancement of requirement that Federal departments and
agencies provide relevant information to the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System
Sec. 211(a). In General. This sub-section amends the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 note) to
require federal agencies, at the request of the Attorney
General, to provide disqualifying information under Sections
922(g) and 922(n) of Title 18, in electronic form. This section
also requires federal agencies to provide disqualifying
information, and any updates, corrections, modifications, or
removals of such information no less than quarterly each year.
Under this section, the Attorney General must also provide an
annual report to Congress describing compliance with these
provisions.
Sec. 211(b). Provision and Maintenance of NICS. This sub-
section requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security to provide disqualifying information, as well as any
changes in a person's legal status, quarterly each year to the
Attorney General. This section also directs the Attorney
General to ensure that the NICS system is maintained accurately
and confidentially, consistent with all applicable laws, to
provide for the timely removal and destruction of obsolete or
erroneous information in the NICS system, and to work with
States to improve their computer systems for prompt
notification of disqualifying information.
Sec. 211(c). Standard for Adjudications, Commitments and
Determinations Related to Mental Health. This sub-section
restricts federal departments and agencies from reporting any
disqualifying mental health records if any of the following
occur: the disqualifying adjudication, determination,
orcommitment has been set aside or expunged or the person has been
fully released from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or
monitoring; the person has been found by a court, commission, or other
lawful authority to no longer suffer from the disqualifying mental
health condition; the disqualifying adjudication, determination, or
commitment does not contain a finding that the person is a danger to
himself or others, or that the person lacks the mental capacity to
manage his own affairs, except that neither this provision, nor any
other provision of law, shall prevent the reporting of adjudications or
determinations of mental insanity or mental incompetence to stand trial
in a criminal or military court proceeding. This section also requires
federal departments and agencies to establish relief from disability
programs for persons disqualified under Sections 922(d)(4) and
922(g)(4). Such programs shall provide relief and judicial review
consistent with Section 925(c) of Title 18. Where a disqualifying
mental health record does not meet the requirements of this law, it is
deemed not to exist for purposes of Section 922(d)(4) and 922(g)(4).
Sec. 211(d). Information Excluded From NICS Records. This
sub-section directs that no federal department or agency may
provide a disqualifying mental health record to NICS unless
that record contains an adjudication, determination, or
commitment that includes a finding that the person is a danger
to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental
capacity to manage his own affairs. This is consistent with the
current regulations interpreting Section 922(g)(4) of Title 18
found at 27 C.F.R. Sec. 478.11. This provision shall apply
retroactively.
Sec. 212. Requirements to obtain waiver
Sec. 212(a). In General. This sub-section provides that
States shall be eligible for a waiver of the 10 percent
matching requirement for grants under the National Criminal
Identification Technology Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 14601) if
a State provides 90 percent of the information described in
Section 212(c).
Sec. 212(b). State Estimates. In order to assist the
Attorney General in determining whether to grant waivers or
impose penalties under this law, this sub-section requires
States to provide the Attorney General with a reasonable
estimate of the number of disqualifying records applicable to
each State within 180 days of the passage of this law. If a
State fails to provide such an estimate, they cannot receive
funds under Section 213. In making this estimate, records are
defined consistent with the disqualifying factors of Section
922(g)(1-4) and 922(g)(8-9). For purposes of evaluating
compliance under this law, the Attorney General shall only
assess the total percentage of records within the 20 prior
years, though States shall nonetheless endeavor to report
disqualifying records regardless of time limit.
Sec. 212(c). Eligibility of State Records for Submission to
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. To be
eligible for the waiver in Section 212(a), this sub-section
requires States to make disqualifying records electronically
available to the Attorney General and to update, correct,
modify, or remove records from NICS that are no longer
disqualifying. To remain eligible for the waiver, States must
certify that they continue to have 90 percent compliance in
reporting disqualifying records to NICS. The States shall also
make available to the Attorney General records relevant to
determinations that a person has been convicted of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, including the specific
law violated. In the case of individuals disqualified for
mental health reasons, only the names and identifying
information of those individuals shall be made available.
Sec. 212(d). Privacy Protections. For any disqualifying
information submitted to the NICS system, this sub-section
directs the Attorney General to work with States, local law
enforcement, and the mental health community to establish
regulations and protocols to protect the privacy of information
provided to NICS.
Sec. 212(e). Attorney General Report. This sub-section
directs the Attorney General to submit a report to the House
and Senate Judiciary Committees on the progress of the States
in automating the disqualifying records reported to NICS.
Sec. 213. Implementation assistance to States
This section provides that the Attorney General shall make
grants to States and Indian tribal governments, in conjunction
with local government and its courts, to establish and upgrade
information and identification technologies reported into NICS.
The grants may only be used to assist States in creating
electronic systems to provide accurate and timely information
to the NICS system and to collect and analyze data for
assessing compliance. States must have a relief from
disabilities program consistent with Section 215 to receive
grants, and shall agree to the conditions of the grants. The
bill authorizes $400 million for each of the fiscal years 2009
through 2013 to carry out this section, and the Attorney
General shall endeavor to provide one half of the funds to
States providing more than 50 percent of the records required
by Section 212 and 213 in the first three years of funding, and
one half of the authorized funding to States providing more
than 70 percent of the same records in the last two years of
funding. Ultimately, the Attorney General shall have discretion
to make adjustments to the funding to distribute the grants as
necessary to maximize incentives for State compliance. The FBI
shall not charge a user fee for background checks under NICS.
Sec. 214. Penalties for noncompliance
This section requires the Attorney General to file annual
reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the
progress of States in automating disqualifying records reported
to NICS. For a two year period beginning three years after this
law is enacted, the Attorney General has the discretion to
withhold not more than 3 percent of the grant funds States
receive pursuant to Section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3755) if a State
provides less than 50 percent of the disqualifying records
under Sections 212 and 213. For the subsequent five year
period, the Attorney General may withhold not more than 4
percent of the same funds if a State provides less than 70
percent of the disqualifying records under Section 212 and 213.
At the conclusion of that period, the Attorney General shall
withhold not more than 5 percent of the same funds if a State
provides less than 90 percent of the disqualifying records
under Sections 212 and 213. The Attorney General may waive
these penalties if a State provides substantial evidence that a
State is making reasonable efforts to comply with the
requirements of Sections 212 and 213, including any inability
to comply due to court order or other legal restriction. In
calculating compliance, the Attorney General shall determine
the methodology and shall base compliance on the total number
of records reported by States from all subcategories of
disqualifying information.
Sec. 215. Relief from disabilities program required as condition for
participation in the grant programs
This section describes the State relief from disabilities
program for persons disqualified for mental health reasons. The
relief programs need to allow such persons to apply for relief
under State law, and provide that a State court, board,
commission, or other lawful authority only grant relief
pursuant to State law, in accordance with due process, and if
the circumstances regarding the disabilityand the person's
record and reputation are such that the person will not be likely to
act in a manner dangerous to public safety and granting relief would
not be contrary to the public interest. The relief from disabilities
program must also permit de novo judicial appeal of any denial of
relief to a State court of appropriate jurisdiction.
Sec. 216. Illegal immigrant gun purchase notification
This section provides that NICS records relevant to whether
a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm as an illegal
alien will be made available to the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and the Attorney General shall promulgate
guidelines as to what records shall be provided.
Subtitle B--Focusing Federal Assistance on the Improvement of Relevant
Records
Sec. 221. Continuing evaluations
This section directs the Director of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics to study and evaluate the operations of the NICS
system, including the State estimates under Section 212(b), and
report to Congress annually. The Director shall also make a
report of best practices in collecting, maintaining,
automating, and transmitting records into the NICS system and
provide it to the States and Congress annually.
Subtitle C--Grants to State Court Systems for the Improvement in
Automation and Transmittal of Disposition Records
Sec. 231. disposition records automation and transmittal improvement
grants
This section provides for the Attorney General to award
grants to State court systems to improve their automation and
transmittal of criminal histories and other disqualifying
records. These funds may only be used to assess the court
systems and implement the policies, systems, and procedures for
the automation and transmittal of disqualifying records. States
must have a relief from disabilities program pursuant to
Section 215. This section authorizes $125 million for each of
the fiscal years 2008 through 2010 to carry out these purposes.
Subtitle D--GAO Audit
Sec. 241. GAO audit
The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct
an audit of the funds expended under this law and shall submit
this report to Congress.
Title III, Sec. 301. Short title
This section provides that this title may be cited as the
``Equity in Law Enforcement Act''.
Sec. 302. Line-of-duty death and disability benefits
This section amends Section 1204(8) of part L of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 to make sworn
law enforcement officers serving at private institutions of
higher education, as well as sworn officers employed by rail
carriers eligible for death and disability benefits provided
under that law.
Sec. 303. Law enforcement armor vests
This section amends Section 2501 of part Y of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make sworn law
enforcement officers serving at private institutions of higher
education, as well as sworn officers employed by rail carriers
eligible for grants to provide such officers with armor vests.
Sec. 304. Byrne grants
This section amends Section 501(b)(2) of part E of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to
make sworn law enforcement officers serving at private
institutions of higher education, as well as sworn officers
employed by rail carriers eligible for Byrne Grants.
Title IV, Sec. 401. Short title
This section provides that this title may be cited as the
``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007.''
Sec. 402. Amendments to law enforcement officers safety provisions of
title 18
This section adds a subsection to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B
making explicit that Amtrak police and executive branch law
enforcement officers are included under the statute regulating
concealed weapons carrying by active duty officers.
Sec. 403.
This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C to reduce to 10
years, from 15 years, the duration of service as a law
enforcement officer required in order to qualify to carry a
concealed weapon once retired. Section 2(b)(1)(B) eliminates
the requirement that a qualified retired law enforcement
officer have a non-forfeitable right to retirement benefits and
expands the list of organizations qualified to certify the
retired officer's firearms training. Section 2(b)(1)(C)
renumbers certain paragraphs.
This section also clarifies language describing the
identification qualified retired officers are required to
carry. Section 2(b)(2)(B) allows instructors who conduct
firearms qualification tests on active duty officers to also
certify retired officers.
Finally, this section adds a subsection making explicit
that Amtrak police and executive branch law enforcement
officers are included under the statute regulating concealed
weapons carrying by retired officers.
Title V, Sec. 501. Short title
This section provides that this title may be cited as the
``Prevention Resources for Eliminating Criminal Activity Using
Tailored Interventions in Our Neighborhoods (PRECAUTION) Act of
2007.''
Sec. 502. Purposes
This section sets forth the legislative purposes, which
include a commitment on the part of the Federal Government to
provide leadership on successful crime prevention and
intervention strategies.
Sec. 503. Definitions
This section defines key terms in the bill.
Sec. 504. National Commission on Public Safety Through Crime Prevention
The Commission will be made up of nine members, selected on
a bipartisan basis by the President and members of both parties
in Congress. Commissioners will include law enforcement
practitioners and social scientists. Representatives of
pertinent DOJ offices will also serve in an ex officio basis.
The Commission will examine the effectiveness of prevention and
intervention strategies in school settings, family and
community settings, and law enforcement settings. The
Commission must issue an initial report that relays the results
of its examination and identifies for State and local law
enforcement: (1) a discrete set of top-tier prevention and
intervention strategies that are supported by scientifically
rigorous evidence; and (2) key steps for implementing these
top-tier strategies. Based upon their comprehensive study, the
Commission will make recommendations to the National Institute
of Justice (NIJ) about the types of strategies it would prefer
to see funded under the grants provided for inSection 505. The
Commission will issue a second report, detailing the strategies
selected by the NIJ for grants under Section 505, the observations of
the Commission on the implementation of these strategies, and the
results of the three-year studies evaluating the effectiveness of the
strategies. Finally, travel costs are covered for Commissioners (who
are not otherwise compensated for service), full-time staff may be
hired (with compensation for the executive director fixed to the
General Schedule pay rates), and federal employees may be assigned as
details to the Commission. A total of $5 million is authorized for the
five years of the Commission's existence.
Sec. 505. Innovative crime prevention and intervention strategy grants
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is authorized to
make grants for pilot projects in crime intervention and
prevention. Grants are to be made for a three-year period. $18
million is authorized for grants, with individual grants not to
exceed $2 million dollars. Grants must include a set-aside for
implementation of a NIJ-approved and scientifically rigorous
study of the effectiveness of the program. Grants must be
evenly distributed among school settings, family and community
settings, and law enforcement settings. The NIJ Director is to
hire or assign a full-time employee to oversee the grants under
Section 505, to monitor implementation of the approved study
design, and to act as the liaison between the grant recipient
and the Commission. Grant recipients are required to cooperate
with the Commission's request for information regarding the
progress of implementation and the study of effectiveness. The
bill authorizes $150,000 per year to cover the cost of
employment for this dedicated staff person.
Title VI, Sec. 601
This section provides that the legislation may be cited as
the ``Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007.''
Sec. 602. Improvements to the terrorist hoax statute
This section expands 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1038, the terrorist
hoax statute, so that it punishes hoaxes about any terrorist
offense listed in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2332b(g)(5)(B). In addition,
the bill increases the maximum penalties for hoaxes about the
death or injury of a U.S. soldier during wartime. The bill also
expands existing civil liability provisions to allow first
responders and other emergency personnel to seek reimbursement
from a party who perpetrates a hoax and becomes aware that
first responders believe that a terrorist offense is taking
place, but fails to inform authorities that no such event has
occurred. Finally, the bill clarifies that threatening
communications are punishable under federal law even if they
are directed at an organization rather than a natural person.
IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
The cost estimate provided by the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 was not available for inclusion in this report. The
estimate will be printed in either a supplemental report or the
Congressional Record when it is available.
V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation
In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory
impact will result from the enactment of S. __, the School
Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007.
VI. Conclusion
Passage of the School Safety and Law Enforcement
Improvement Act, S. __, will enlist the States as partners in
the dissemination of critical information about the purchases
of firearms, will distribute federal dollars to improve the
safety and security of our schools from kindergarten through
the college and university level, will provide equitable
benefits to campus safety officers protecting private colleges
and universities, and will effectively evaluate and implement
crime prevention programs in school settings and elsewhere. The
bill also makes improvements to two existing laws by ensuring
that law enforcement officers may answer the call of duty
wherever they may be by clarifying the scope of concealed carry
laws, and by strengthening the federal terrorist hoax statute
to punish disruptive and costly ``false alarms'' that can
create turmoil in schools and on college campuses.
In reporting the bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee has
demonstrated its desire to address and prevent violence in our
nation's schools, improve the resources available to law
enforcement, and enact measures to protect our nation's most
valuable resource: its young people.
VII. Supplemental Views
----------
OPPOSING VIEWS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY
I oppose Title IV of the School Safety and Law Enforcement
Improvements Act, which amends the Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act of 2004.
Title IV is a serious step in the wrong direction and will
undermine the safety of our communities and our police officers
by further overriding state and local gun-safety laws. It will
also weaken the ability of police departments to enforce rules
and policies on when and how their own officers can carry
firearms. Because of the substantial danger of the LEOSA
Amendment to police officers and communities, it is vigorously
opposed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police
and the National Sheriffs' Association.
A. THE LEOSA AMENDMENT WILL FURTHER WEAKEN THE ABILITY OF STATES AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE FIREARMS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES
Every year, thousands of our fellow citizens are killed by
guns. The devastating tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech
last April shocked the nation. The country was united in
extending our deepest condolences and prayers to the students,
faculty, and families affected by the brutal crime. Many of the
victims were young men and women in the prime of their lives.
They were sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and
neighbors. Yet, as part of this measure, the Committee has
approved this ill-conceived measure to allow even more people
to carry concealed weapons in our communities. The overall rate
of firearm deaths among children is nearly twelve times higher
in the United States than in other industrial countries. These
deaths are senseless, and we all know that the vast majority of
them could be prevented by sensible gun laws. It is shameful
that we are not doing more in Congress to achieve gun safety
and reduce gun violence. The ``gun show loophole,'' which
allows firearms to be purchased illegally at gun shows, should
have been closed long ago, and there are many other steps that
Congress should take to protect citizens from the scourge of
gun violence.
At the very least, Congress should refrain from interfering
with gun-safety laws enacted by states and local governments.
Before LEOSA was enacted in 2004, each state had the authority
to decide what kind of concealed-carry law, if any, best fit
the needs of its communities. But the 2004 Act took away the
ability of state and local police departments to enforce rules
and policies on when and how their own officers can carry
weapons. If we are going to amend the Act, we should give back
the power of local police to run their own departments, not
further undermine their ability to protect their citizens.
No evidence supported the need for the law when it was
first enacted. States and local governments adequately met the
interests and needs of their active duty and retired law
enforcement officers. Consider, for example, New Jersey law. In
1995, retired police Chief John Deventer was shot and killed
while heroically trying to stop a robbery. His death prompted
New Jersey to enact a law allowing retired officers to carry
handguns under a number of conditions. In drafting this law,
the New Jersey legislature made a deliberate effort to balance
the safety of police officers with the safety of the public, by
including a number of important safeguards not contained in
LEOSA. For example:
<bullet> The New Jersey law is limited to handguns. LEOSA
is not.
<bullet> The New Jersey law has a maximum age of 70. LEOSA
does not.
<bullet> Under New Jersey's law, retired police officers
must file renewal applications every year. There is no
application process under LEOSA.
<bullet> The New Jersey law requires retirees to list all
their guns. No such record is required under LEOSA.
<bullet> The New Jersey law gives a police department the
discretion to deny permits to retirees. No such discretion is
provided under LEOSA.
By enacting LEOSA, Congress essentially eliminated all of
the safeguards in the New Jersey statute, as well as the
judgment of other states that have considered this issue. We
had no evidence of the need for this legislation in 2004, and
we have none now. It is critical that our policies be guided by
research and evaluation, which is why I introduced an amendment
adopted by unanimous consent at the August 2nd Judiciary
Committee meeting to require the Government Accountability
Office to conduct a study of the number of active and retired
law enforcement officers who carry concealed firearms under the
provisions established by LEOSA. It would have made more sense
to conduct a study prior to enacting legislation that puts more
guns on the street.
In the 1990's, Boston, New York, and other cities made
substantial progress in the war on crime, precisely because
they were able to pass laws that addressed the factors that
lead to violence - including the prevalence of firearms in
inner cities. As Congressman Henry Hyde has said, ``the best
decisions on fighting crime are made at the local level.'' By
overriding all local gun-safety laws, LEOSA compromised the
ability of cities to fight crime. Congress has no business
overriding the judgment of states and local governments in
deciding whether concealed weapons should be prohibited.
The LEOSA Amendment neither promotes consistent training
policies among different police jurisdictions nor limits the
conditions under which officers may use their firearms. The
idea that more crimes will be prevented when more concealed
weapons are carried by untrained and unregulated out-of-state,
off-duty and retired officers is pure fiction. The
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), one of
the oldest and largest associations of law enforcement
executives, has identified the dangers of this legislation in a
recent letter to the Committee,
Title IV would severely weaken the eligibility and training
requirements for retired police officers to carry concealed
weapons. The IACP believes that states and localities should
have the right to establish standards that determine who is
eligible to carry firearms in their communities * * *
Specifically, the provisions of Title IV would mandate that, in
the absence of state standards, the standards set by any police
department within the state would become the de facto standard
for the entire state.
For example, in the absence of state standards:
<bullet> The standards for Vermont could be set by the
Fairlee Police Department (one sworn officer);
<bullet> The standards for Pennsylvania could be set by the
Dauphin Police Department (twosworn officers);
<bullet> The standards for Illinois could be set by the
Cordova Police Department (one sworn officer);
<bullet> The standards for California could be set by the
Etna Police Department (two sworn officers);
<bullet> The standards for Massachusetts could be set by
the Brookfield Police Department (one sworn officer).
For these and other reasons, the IACP concluded that Title
IV of this measure ``would undercut the ability of state and
local law enforcement agencies to determine what standards best
meet the needs of the departments and the communities they
serve.''
Law enforcement leaders face extremely difficult challenges
today. With crime rates on the rise again and new concerns
about domestic security, police chiefs are forced to do more
with less. The weak economy has forced cities and states to cut
back on funding for law enforcement. The Administration's
budget proposes to eliminate all federal funding for such vital
programs as the COPS Universal Hiring Program, the Byrne Grant
Program, and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. The
last thing Congress should do now is pass a bill that expands
the civil liability of police departments and nullifies the
ability of police chiefs to regulate their own officers' use of
firearms and maintain discipline.
Those who want to amend LEOSA have offered no evidence that
states and local governments are unable or unwilling to decide
these important issues for themselves. They have offered no
explanation why Congress is better suited than states, cities,
and towns to decide how to best protect police officers,
schoolchildren, church-goers, and other members of their
communities. Congress should bolster, not undermine, the
efforts of states and local governments to protect their
citizens from gun violence.
LEOSA has also jeopardized most ``safe harbor'' laws at the
state level by essentially overriding laws that categorically
prohibit guns in churches and other houses of worship, since
only laws that permit private entities to post signs
prohibiting concealed firearms on their property remain in
force. In most states, churches are not currently required to
post signs in order to have a gun-free zone.
LEOSA has even preempted laws that prohibit concealed
weapons in places where alcohol is served. Surely, it is
reasonable for a state to prohibit individuals from bringing
guns into bars, to prevent the extreme danger that results when
liquor and firearms come together. Yet Congress allowed this
legislation to go forward and now this measure will make it
even easier for a retired officer to get a gun--regardless of
state and local laws. Let's not compound that mistake by
further damaging firearms laws.
B. LEOSA WILL UNDERMINE THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND THE SAFETY OF
POLICE OFFICERS
Title IV will also allow less qualified retired officers to
carry concealed weapons. The provision changes the service
requirement from a retired officer who was regularly employed
for an aggregate of fifteen years or more to a retired officer
who served for ten years. The measure also strikes the
provision that requires a retired officer to have obtained a
non-forfeitable right to benefits under the agency's retirement
plan. These changes erode the few safeguards in the original
Act. Greater numbers of less qualified officers will now be
able to legally carry concealed weapons, making local
communities even more dangerous. That is why I introduced an
amendment at the August 2nd Judiciary Committee meeting to
emphasize that nothing in LEOSA should be construed to limit or
supersede state or local laws that prohibit or restrict the
possession of a concealed firearm by an officer who has retired
under threat of disciplinary action, who has been dismissed for
emotional problems, who leaves the force prior to a
disciplinary or competency hearing, or who, after retiring,
becomes unfit to carry a concealed weapon. Unfortunately, the
Committee rejected this amendment by a vote of 9 to 10.
Make no mistake. There are numerous cases in which both
active duty and retired officers have used firearms with deadly
consequences. Recently, a Prince George's County police officer
and former Homeland Security official was indicted in August
2007 on charges of murder and attempted murder. The officer
fired on two unarmed delivery men last January, killing one and
seriously wounding the other. The same officer was charged in a
second gun-related case after he pulled a gun on a real estate
appraiser who accidentally knocked on his door. In another
disturbing case, a retired New York Police Department police
officer was charged with shooting and killing his ex-wife.
There's no question that such incidents will increase if this
legislation becomes law, allowing less qualified officers who
do not receive ongoing training to carry concealed weapons. As
the National Sheriff's Association pointed out in a letter of
February 28, 2007, ``* * * carrying a firearm is a privilege
that is bestowed upon those retired law enforcement officers
that have dedicated their lives to protect the safety of our
citizens, and when considering the expansion of such a
privilege we must not act hastily.''
There is not even a requirement in the LEOSA Amendment that
a retiree demonstrate a special need for a firearm. LEOSA
provides that an officer must have technically left law
enforcement in ``good standing,'' but it is clear that sub-par
government employees are often routinely released from their
positions without a formal finding of misconduct. The bill does
not draw a distinction between officers who served ably and
those who did not. Officers who retire in ``good standing''
while under investigation for domestic violence, racial
profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse could still
qualify for broad concealed-carry authority for the remainder
of their lives. I introduced an amendment at the August 2nd
Judiciary Committee meeting to require stricter standards, so
that only truly competent persons could qualify to carry
concealed firearms. The Committee rejected the amendment by a
vote of 6 to 13.
Congress should also support emerging technologies, such as
microstamping, which can allow law enforcement to make use of
evidence left at crime scenes. Microstamping uses lasers to
make precise, microscopic engravings on the firing pin and
chamber of a weapon, which are transferred onto the cartridge
casing when the weapon is fired. The process transfers the
gun's make, model and serial number to the casing, which can
yield important information to law enforcement officers
investigating crimes. This technology would substantially
improve law enforcement's ability to act quickly to identify
and link shell casings found at a crime scene to the individual
handgun from which it was fired. In fact, microstamping may
have enabled investigators of the Virginia Tech shooting to
identify the perpetrator more quickly, by analyzing
microstamped markings on the casings left behind at the first
crime scene. At the August 2nd Committee Meeting, I offered an
amendment to require certain firearms manufactured, imported or
sold by Federal firearms licensees to be capable of
microstamping ammunition. The Committee failed to approve the
amendment by a vote of 8 to 11.
C. CONCLUSION
Each state and local government should be allowed to make
its own judgment as to when citizens and out-of-state visitors
may carry concealed weapons--and whether active or retired law
enforcement officers should be included in or exempted from any
prohibition. In the words of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, it is ``essential that state and local
governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry
laws that best fit the needs of their communities.''
Allowing greater numbers of less qualified off-duty or
retired officers with concealed weapons to go into other
jurisdictions will only make conditions more dangerous for
police officers and civilians. As the Executive Director of the
IACP explained in a letter of March 7, 2007:
The ability of law enforcement agencies to establish,
implement, and maintain firearms standards and training
requirements varies greatly from state to state and
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions
have developed rigorous training programs and have
established strict standards of accountability and
stringent firearms policies while other jurisdictions
have not. This legislation would undercut the ability
of state and local law enforcement agencies to
determine what standards best meet the needs of the
departments and the communities they serve.
LEOSA will unnecessarily damage the efforts of states and
local governments to protect their citizens from gun violence.
It will also expose state and local governments to unnecessary
liability and nullify the ability of police chiefs to maintain
discipline and control within their own departments. I regret
that the Committee did not adopt the amendments I offered to
correct the bill's most serious flaws. The nation will be
better served if Congress puts aside this misguided effort to
further weaken state and local control over concealed carry
laws, and turns its attention instead to measures we know will
reduce crime and improve the safety of police officers and all
Americans.
Ted Kennedy.
VIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. __, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 42--EXTORTION AND CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 877. MAILING THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRY.
Whoever knowingly deposits in any post office or authorized
depository for mail matter of any foreign country any
communication addressed to any person within the United States,
for the purpose of having such communication delivered by the
post office establishment of such foreign country to the Postal
Service and by it delivered to such addressee in the United
States, and as a result thereof such communication is delivered
by the post office establishment of such foreign country to the
Postal Service and by it delivered to the address to which it
is directed in the United States, and containing any demand or
request for ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped
person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than twenty years, or both.
Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or
other thing of value, so deposits as aforesaid, any
communication for the purpose aforesaid, containing any threat
to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of the
addressee or of another, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Whoever knowingly so deposits as aforesaid, any
communication, for the purpose aforesaid, containing any threat
to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of the
addressee or of another, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or
other thing of value, knowingly so deposits as aforesaid, any
communication, for the purpose aforesaid, containing any threat
to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of
another, or the reputation of a deceased person, or any threat
to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both.
For purposes of this section, the term ``addressed to any
person'' includes an individual, a corporation or other legal
person, and a government or agency or component thereof.
CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 922. NOTE.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
* * * * * * *
(e) Administrative Provisions
(1) Authority to obtain official information.
[Notwithstanding]
(A) In general._Notwithstanding any other
law, the Attorney General may secure directly
from any department or agency of the United
States such information on persons for whom
receipt of a firearm would violate subsection
(g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United
States Code [subsec. (g) or (n) of this
section], or State law, as is necessary to
enable the system to operate in accordance with
this section. [On request]
(B) Request of attorney general._On request
the Attorney General, the head of such
department or agency shall [furnish such
information] furnish electronic versions of the
information described under subparagraph (A) to
the system.
(C) Quarterly submission to attorney
general.--If a department or agency under
subparagraph (A) has any record of any person
demonstrating that the person falls within one
of the categories described in subsection (g)
or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United
States Code, the head of such department or
agency shall, not less frequently than
quarterly, provide the pertinent information
contained in such record to the Attorney
General.
(D) Information updates.--The agency, on
being made aware that the basis under which a
record was made available under subparagraph
(A) does not apply, or no longer applies,
shall--
(i) update, correct, modify, or
remove the record from any database
that the agency maintains and makes
available to the Attorney General, in
accordance with the rules pertaining to
that database; or
(ii) notify the Attorney General that
such basis no longer applies so that
the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System is kept up to
date.
(E) Annual report.--The Attorney General
shall submit an annual report to Congress that
describes the compliance of each department or
agency with the provisions of this paragraph.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 926B. CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS BY QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS.
* * * * * * *
(f) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer
of the Amtrak Police Department or a law enforcement or police
officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government
qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is
authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention,
detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the
incarceration for, any violation of the law, and has statutory
powers of arrest
* * * * * * *
SEC. 926C. CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS BY QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
* * * * * * *
(c) As used in this section, the term ``qualified retired
law enforcement officer'' means an individual who--
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) before such retirement, [was regularly
employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate
of 15 years or more] served as a law enforcement
officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or
(B) retired from service with such agency, after
completing any applicable probationary period of such
service, due to a service-connected disability, as
determined by such agency;
(4) [has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the
retirement plan of the agency] during the most recent
12-month period, has met, at the expense of the
individual, the standards for qualification in firearms
training for active law enforcement officers as set by
the former agency, the State in which the officer
resides or a law enforcement agency within the State in
which the officer resides;
[(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met,
at the expense of the individual, the State's standards
for training and qualification for active law
enforcement officers to carry firearms;]
[(6)] (5) is not under the influence of alcohol or
another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
substance; and
[(7)] (6) is not prohibited by Federal law from
receiving a firearm.
(d) The identification required by this subsection is--
(1) a photographic identification issued by the
agency from which the individual retired from service
as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the
individual has, not less recently than one year before
the date the individual is carrying the concealed
firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency
[to meet the standards established by the agency for
training and qualification for active law enforcement
officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the
concealed firearm; or] to meet the active duty
standards for qualification in firearms training as
established by the agency to carry a firearm of the
same type as the concealed firearm or
(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the
agency from which the individual retired from service
as a law enforcement officer; and
(B) a certification issued by the State in which the
individual resides that indicates that the individual
has, not less recently than one year before the date
the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been
tested or [otherwise found by the State to meet the
standards established by the State for training and
qualification for active law enforcement officers to
carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed
firearm.] Otherwise found by the State or a certified
firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a
firearms qualification test for active duty officers
within that State to have met--
(i) the active duty standards for
qualification in firearms training as
established by the State to carry a firearm of
the same type as the concealed firearm; or
(ii) if the State has not established such
standards, standards set by any law enforcement
agency within that State to carry a firearm of
the same type as the concealed firearm.
* * * * * * *
(f) In this section, the term `service with a public agency
as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a law
enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or as a law
enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the
Federal Government.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1038. FALSE INFORMATION AND HOAXES.
(a) Criminal Violation.--
(1) In general.--Whoever engages in any conduct with
intent to convey false or misleading information under
circumstances where such information may reasonably be
believed and where such information indicates that an
activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that
would constitute a violation of chapter 2, 10, 11B, 39,
40, 44, 111, or 113B of this title, section 236 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), or section
46502, the second sentence of section 46504, section
46505(b)(3) or (c), section 46506 if homicide or
attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) of
title 49, or any other offense listed under section
2332b(g)(5)(B) of this title, shall--
(A) be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 5 years, or both;
(B) if serious bodily injury results, be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 20 years, or both; and
(C) if death results, be fined under this
title or imprisoned for any number of years up
to life, or both.
(2) Armed forces.--Any person who makes a false
statement, with intent to convey false or misleading
information, about the death, injury, capture, or
disappearance of a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States during a war or armed conflict in which
the United States is engaged--
(A) shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than [5 years] 10 years, or
both;
(B) if serious bodily injury results, shall
be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than [20 years] 25 years, or both; and
(C) if death results, shall be fined under
this title, imprisoned for any number of years
or for life, or both.
(b) Civil Action.--Whoever engages in any conduct with
intent to convey false or misleading information under
circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed
and where such information indicates that an activity has
taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an
offense listed under subsection (a)(1) is liable in a civil
action to any party incurring expenses incident to any
emergency or investigative response to that conduct, for those
expenses.
(2) Effect of conduct.--
(A) In general.--A person described in
subparagraph (B) is liable in a civil action to
any party described in subparagraph (B)(ii) for
any expenses that are incurred by that party--
(i) incident to any emergency or
investigative response to any conduct
described in subparagraph (B)(i); and
(ii) after the person that engaged in
that conduct should have informed the
party of the actual nature of the
activity.
(B) Applicability.--A person described in
this subparagraph is any person that--
(i) engages in any conduct that has
the effect of conveying false or
misleading information under
circumstances where such information
may reasonably be believed to indicate
that an activity is taking place that
would constitute an offense listed
under subsection (a)(1);
(ii) receives actual notice that
another party is taking emergency or
investigative action because that party
believes that an activity has taken, is
taking, or will take place that would
constitute an offense listed under
subsection (a)(1); and
(iii) after receiving such notice,
fails to promptly and reasonably inform
1 or more parties described in clause
(ii) of the actual nature of the
activity.
(c) Reimbursement.--
(1) In general.--The court, in imposing a sentence on
a defendant who has been convicted of an offense under
subsection (a), shall order the defendant to reimburse
any state or local government, or private not-for-
profit organization that provides fire or rescue
service incurring expenses incident to any emergency or
investigative response to that conduct, for those
expenses.
(2) Liability.--A person ordered to make
reimbursement under this subsection shall be jointly
and severally liable for such expenses with each other
person, if any, who is ordered to make reimbursement
under this subsection for the same expenses.
(3) Civil judgment.--An order of reimbursement under
this subsection shall, for the purposes of enforcement,
be treated as a civil judgment.
(d) Activities of Law Enforcement.--This section does not
prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or
intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United
States, a State, or political subdivision of a State, or of an
intelligence agency of the United States.
OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968 (P.L. 90-351)
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
* * * * * * *
PART E--BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAMS
Subpart 1--Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program
* * * * * * *
SEC. 501. DESCRIPTION.
* * * * * * *
(b) Contracts and Subawards.--A State or unit of local
government may, in using a grant under this subpart for
purposes authorized by subsection (a), use all or a portion of
that grant to contract with or make one or more subawards to
one or more--
(1) neighborhood or community-based organizations
that are private and nonprofit; or
(2) units of local government, private institutions
of higher education, and rail carriers.
* * * * * * *
PART L--PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH BENEFITS
Subpart 1--Death Benefits
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1204. As used in this part--
* * * * * * *
(9) ``public safety officer'' means--
(A) an individual serving a public agency in
an official capacity, with or without
compensation, as a law enforcement officer, as
a firefighter, as a chaplain, or as a member of
a rescue squad or ambulance crew;
(B) an employee of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency who is performing official
duties of the Agency in an area, if those
official duties--
(i) are related to a major disaster
or emergency that has been, or is
later, declared to exist with respect
to the area under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et
seq.); and
(ii) are determined by the Director
of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to be hazardous duties; [or]
(C) an employee of a State, local, or tribal
emergency management or civil defense agency
who is performing official duties in
cooperation with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency in an area, if those official
duties--
(i) are related to a major disaster
or emergency that has been, or is
later, declared to exist with respect
to the area under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et
seq.); and
(ii) are determined by the head of
the agency to be hazardous duties[.]
(D) an individual who is--
(i) serving a private institution of
higher education in an official
capacity, with or without compensation,
as a law enforcement officer; and
(ii) sworn, licensed, or certified
under the laws of a State for the
purposes of law enforcement (and
trained to meet the training standards
for law enforcement officers
established by the relevant
governmental appointing authority); or
(E) a rail police officer who is--
(i) employed by a rail carrier; and
(ii) sworn, licensed, or certified
under the laws of a State for the
purposes of law enforcement (and
trained to meet the training standards
for law enforcement officers
established by the relevant
governmental appointing authority).
* * * * * * *
PART Y--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR VESTS
SEC. 2501. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
(a) In General.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance is authorized to make grants to States, units of
local government, and [Indian tribes] Indian tribes, private
institutions of higher education, and rail carriers to purchase
armor vests for use by State, local, and tribal law enforcement
officers and law enforcement officers serving private
institutions of higher education and rail carriers who are
sworn, licensed, or certified under the laws of a State for the
purposes of law enforcement (and trained to meet the training
standards for law enforcement officers established by the
relevant governmental appointing authority.
(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section shall
be--
(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local
government, or [Indian tribe] Indian tribe, private
institution of higher education, or rail carrier; and
(2) used for the purchase of armor vests for law
enforcement officers in the jurisdiction of the
grantee.
* * * * * * *
(e) Maximum Amount.--A qualifying State, unit of local
government, or [Indian tribe] Indian tribe, private institution
of higher education, or rail carrier may not receive more than
5 percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal year
for grants under this section, except that a State, together
with the grantees within the State may not receive more than 20
percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal year
for grants under this section.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2502. APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--To request a grant under this part, the
chief executive of a State, unit of local government, or
[Indian tribe] Indian tribe, private institution of higher
education, or rail carrier shall submit an application to the
Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance in such form and
containing such information as the Director may reasonably
require.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this part, the Director of the Bureau of
Justice Assistance shall promulgate regulations to implement
this section (including the information that must be included
and the requirements that the States, units of local
government, and [Indian tribes] Indian tribes, private
institutions of higher education, and rail carriers must meet)
in submitting the applications required under this section.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2503. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this part--
* * * * * * *
(6) the term ``law enforcement officer'' means any
officer, agent, or employee of a State, unit of local
government, or [Indian tribe] Indian tribe, private
institution of higher education, or railcarrier
authorized by law or by a government agency to engage in or supervise
the prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of
criminal law, or authorized by law to supervise sentenced criminal
offenders.
* * * * * * *
PART AA--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL SAFETY
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2701. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
* * * * * * *
(b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section shall
be distributed directly to the State, unit of local government,
or Indian tribe, and shall be used to improve security at
schools and on school grounds in the jurisdiction of the
grantee through one or more of the following:
(1) Placement and use of metal detectors surveillance
equipment, locks, lighting, and other deterrent
measures.
[(2) Security assessments.]
(2) Establishment of hotlines or tiplines for the
reporting of potentially dangerous students and
situations.
(3) Security training of personnel and students.
(4) Coordination with local law enforcement.
(5) Capital improvements to make school facilities
more secure.
[(5)] (6) Any other measure that, in the
determination of the Director, may provide a
significant improvement in security.
* * * * * * *
(d) Matching Funds.--
[(1) The portion of the costs of a program provided
by a grant under subsection (a) may not exceed 50
percent.]
(1) The Federal share of the costs of a program
provided by a grant under subsection (a) shall be 50
percent of the total of such costs. The non-Federal
share of such costs shall be 50 percent of such costs.
* * * * * * *
(g) Interagency Task Force.--Not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of the School Safety and Law Enforcement
Improvement Act of 2007, the Director and the Secretary of
Education, or the designee of the Secretary, shall establish an
interagency task force to develop and promulgate a set of
advisory school safety guidelines. The advisory school safety
guidelines shall be published in the Federal Register by not
later than June 1, 2008.
SEC. 2702. APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--To request a grant under this part, the
chief executive of a State, unit of local government, or Indian
tribe shall submit an application to the Director at such time,
in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the
Director may require. Each application shall--
(1) include a detailed explanation of--
(A) the intended uses of funds provided under
the grant; and
(B) how the activities funded under the grant
will meet the purpose of this part; and
(2) be accompanied by [an assurance that the
application was prepared after consultation with
individuals not limited to law enforcement officers
(such as school violence researchers, child
psychologists, social workers, teachers, principals,
and other school personnel) to ensure that the
improvements to be funded under the grant are] a
report, prepared in consultation with senior school
professionals and senior law enforcement officers,
demonstrating that each proposed use of the grant funds
will be--
[(A) consistent with a comprehensive approach
to preventing school violence; and]
(B) [individualized to the needs of each
school at which those improvements are to be
made.]
(A) an effective means for improving the
safety of one or more schools;
(B) consistent with a comprehensive approach
to preventing school violence; and
(C) individualized to the needs of each
school at which those improvements are to be
made.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2705. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subchapter [$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2009] $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
* * * * * * *
PART JJ--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR CAMPUS SAFETY AND SECURITY
SEC. 2998. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR CAMPUS SAFETY AND SECURITY.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General is authorized to make
grants, through the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, to institutions of higher education or consortia of
institutions of higher education to pay the Federal share of
the costs of providing improved security at those institutions.
(b) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under
this part, the Attorney General shall give preferential
consideration, if feasible, to an application from an
institution of higher education that--
(1) has a demonstrated need for improved security;
(2) has a demonstrated need for financial assistance;
and
(3) has evidenced the ability to make the
improvements for which the grant amounts are sought.
(c) Federal Share, Non-Federal Share.--
(1) In general.--The Federal share of the costs of
the activities under this part shall be 50 percent of
the total of such costs. The non-Federal share of such
costs shall be 50 percent of such costs.
(2) Special rule.--Any funds appropriated by Congress
for the activities of any agency of an Indian tribal
government or the Bureau of Indian Affairs performing
law enforcement functions on any Indian lands may be
used by the tribal colleges and universities to provide
the non-Federal share under this subsection.
(3) Waiver or alteration.--The Attorney General may
provide, in the guidelines implementing this section,
for the requirement of paragraph (1) to be waived or
altered in the case of a recipient with a financial
need for such a waiver or alteration.
(d) Equitable Distribution.--In awarding grants under this
part, the Attorney General shall ensure, to the extent
practicable, an equitable geographic distribution among the
regions of the United States and among urban, suburban, and
rural areas.
(e) Administrative Costs.--The Attorney General may reserve
not more than 2 percent from amounts appropriated to carry out
this part for administrative costs.
SEC. 2998-1. APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--To request a grant under this part, the
institution of higher education or consortium shall submit an
application to the Attorney General at such time, in such
manner, and accompanied by such information as the Attorney
General may require. Each application shall--
(1) include a detailed explanation of--
(A) the intended uses of funds provided under
the grant; and
(B) how the activities funded under the grant
will meet the purpose of this part; and
(2) be accompanied by a report, signed by the chief
executive or designated administrator of each
institution of higher education receiving assistance
under the grant, demonstrating that each proposed use
of the grant funds will be--
(A) an effective means for improving the
safety of 1 or more institutions of higher
education;
(B) consistent with a comprehensive approach
to preventing campus crime and ensuring campus
security; and
(C) individualized to the needs of each
institution of higher education or consortium
at which those improvements are to be made.
(b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement
Act of 2007, the Attorney General shall promulgate guidelines
to implement this section regarding submitting the applications
required under this section.
SEC. 2998-2. USE OF FUNDS.
Grants awarded under this part shall be distributed
directly to institutions of higher education or consortia and
shall be used to improve campus security at institutions of
higher education, whether public or private, in the
jurisdiction of the grantee through 1 or more of the following:
(1) Hiring of additional campus public safety and
security officers (sworn and nonsworn) as well as
additional staff and support staff necessary for
emergency management.
(2) Placement and use of surveillance equipment,
locks, lighting, metal detectors, and other deterrent
measures.
(3) Developing and implementing emergency
communications systems for campuses in order to contact
students using state-of-the-art communications methods.
(4) Security assessments.
(5) Security training of personnel and students.
(6) Coordination with Federal, State, and local law
enforcement.
(7) Testing of emergency response and evacuation
procedures.
(8) Capital improvements to make school facilities
more secure.
(9) Establishment of hotlines or tiplines for the
reporting of potentially dangerous students and
situations.
(10) Establishment and operation of an office of
campus public safety.
(11) Computer-aided dispatch and record management
systems.
(12) Any other measure that, in the determination of
the Attorney General, may provide a significant
improvement in security.
SEC. 2998-3. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than November 30 of each year, the Attorney
General shall submit a report to Congress regarding the
activities carried out under this part. Each such report shall
include, for the preceding fiscal year--
(1) the number of grants funded under this part;
(2) the amount of funds provided under those grants;
and
(3) the activities for which those funds were used.
SEC. 2998-4. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this part, the term `institution of higher
education' means an institution of higher education as defined
in section 101 of the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1001) and
includes tribal colleges and universities as defined in 20
U.S.C. 1059c(b)(3);
SEC. 2998-5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
part $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
<all>