59–010 

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) 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
2 

1On 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. 

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.1

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, Cho 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
3 

2See Dena Potter, Experts Say Inside Locks on Classroom Doors Would Save Lives, Associated Press, July 29, 2007. 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. 4See 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. 

entered 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. 

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. § 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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
4 

5See id. at 1. 

6See Deadly Rampage in Quiet Vermont Town, Boston Globe, Aug. 25, 2006, at A1. 

7See Raymond McCaffrey and Michael E. Ruane, An Amish Community Grieves for Its Little 

Ones, The Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2006. 8See 42 U.S.C. § 3797a (the ‘‘Secure Our Schools’’ grant program). 9See National Summit on Campus Public Safety, U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office, 

at 7 (2005). 

never been higher, the Federal Government must play a more significant role in securing our schools. 

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. 

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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
5 

10The 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. 11 H.R. 2640 was passed by the House by voice vote on June 13, 2007, and reported to the 

Senate the next day. 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 

Continued 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
6 

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. § 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. § 922(n). 

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. 

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. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
7 

13See 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). 

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. 

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 schoolbased 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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
8 

14This 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. 

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. § 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. §§ 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

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. § 1038, the terrorism hoax statute, so that it punishes hoaxes about any terrorist offense listed in section 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
9 

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). 

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

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. On April 

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 SenVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:11 Sep 23, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR183.XXX SR183

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
10 

16There 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.’’

ators 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. 

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: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
11 

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 to 

traditional 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.). 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
12 

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. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
13 

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. § 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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
14 

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, or commitment 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 subsection 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. § 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. § 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 disVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:12 Sep 23, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR183.XXX SR183

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
15 

qualifying 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. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
16 

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. § 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 disability and 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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
17 

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.’’


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
18 

Sec. 402. Amendments to law enforcement officers safety provisions 

of title 18 

This section adds a subsection to 18 U.S.C. § 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. § 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) 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
19 

about the types of strategies it would prefer to see funded under 

the grants provided for in Section 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. § 1038, the terrorist hoax statute, 

so that it punishes hoaxes about any terrorist offense listed in 18 

U.S.C. § 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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
20 

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. ll, the School Safety and Law 

Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007. 

VI. CONCLUSION

Passage of the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement 

Act, S. ll, 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. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(21) 

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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
22 

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: • The New Jersey law is limited to handguns. LEOSA is not. • The New Jersey law has a maximum age of 70. LEOSA does 

not. • Under New Jersey’s law, retired police officers must file renewal applications every year. There is no application process 

under LEOSA. • The New Jersey law requires retirees to list all their guns. No 

such record is required under LEOSA. • 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, 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
23 

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: 

• The standards for Vermont could be set by the Fairlee 

Police Department (one sworn officer); • The standards for Pennsylvania could be set by the 

Dauphin Police Department (two sworn officers); • The standards for Illinois could be set by the Cordova 

Police Department (one sworn officer); • The standards for California could be set by the Etna 

Police Department (two sworn officers); • 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, churchgoers, 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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
24 

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 gunrelated 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. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
25 

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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
26 

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. ll, 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. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
27 

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. øNotwithstanding¿ 

(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 øsubsec. (g) or (n) of this section¿, or State law, as 

is necessary to enable the system to operate in accordance 

with this section. øOn request¿ 

(B) REQUEST OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.—On request the Attorney General, the head of such department or agency 

shall øfurnish 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. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
28 

(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, øwas 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) øhas 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; 

ø(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;¿ 

ø(6)¿ (5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and 

ø(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 øto meet the standards established by the agency for trainVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:12 Sep 23, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR183.XXX SR183

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
29 

ing 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 øotherwise 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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
30 

(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 ø5 years¿ 10 years, or both; 

(B) if serious bodily injury results, shall be fined under 

this title, imprisoned not more than ø20 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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
31 

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—


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
32 

(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; øor¿ 

(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 dutiesø.¿ 

(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 øIndian 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 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
33 

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 øIndian 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 øIndian 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 øIndian 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 øIndian 

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 øIndian tribe¿ Indian tribe, private institution of higher education, 

or rail carrier 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. 

* * * * * * * 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
34 

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. 

ø(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. 

ø(5)¿ (6) Any other measure that, in the determination of the 

Director, may provide a significant improvement in security. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) MATCHING FUNDS.—

ø(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 øan assurance that the application 

was prepared after consultation with individuals not limited to 

law enforcement officers (such as school violence researchers, 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
35 

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—

ø(A) consistent with a comprehensive approach to preventing school violence; and¿ 

(B) øindividualized 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 ø$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. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
36 

(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 stateof-the-art communications methods. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
37 

(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. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING