[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 3, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H881-H884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CAMPUS SAFETY ACT OF 2009
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 748) to establish and operate a National Center for
Campus Public Safety.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 748
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Center to Advance, Monitor,
and Preserve University Security Safety Act of 2009'' or the
``CAMPUS Safety Act of 2009''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR CAMPUS PUBLIC SAFETY.
Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following new part:
``PART LL--NATIONAL CENTER FOR CAMPUS PUBLIC SAFETY
``SEC. 3021. NATIONAL CENTER FOR CAMPUS PUBLIC SAFETY.
``(a) Authority To Establish and Operate Center.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services is authorized to establish and
operate a National Center for Campus Public Safety (referred
to in this section as the `Center').
``(2) Grant authority.--The Director of the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services is authorized to award
grants to institutions of higher education and other
nonprofit organizations to assist in carrying out the
functions of the Center required under subsection (b).
``(b) Functions of the Center.--The Center shall--
``(1) provide quality education and training for campus
public safety agencies of institutions of higher education
and the agencies' collaborative partners, including campus
mental health agencies;
``(2) foster quality research to strengthen the safety and
security of institutions of higher education;
``(3) serve as a clearinghouse for the identification and
dissemination of information,
[[Page H882]]
policies, procedures, and best practices relevant to campus
public safety, including off-campus housing safety, the
prevention of violence against persons and property, and
emergency response and evacuation procedures;
``(4) develop protocols, in conjunction with the Attorney
General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of
Education, State, local, and tribal governments and law
enforcement agencies, private and nonprofit organizations and
associations, and other stakeholders, to prevent, protect
against, respond to, and recover from, natural and man-made
emergencies or dangerous situations involving an immediate
threat to the health or safety of the campus community;
``(5) promote the development and dissemination of
effective behavioral threat assessment and management models
to prevent campus violence;
``(6) coordinate campus safety information (including ways
to increase off-campus housing safety) and resources
available from the Department of Justice, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Education, State, local,
and tribal governments and law enforcement agencies, and
private and nonprofit organizations and associations;
``(7) increase cooperation, collaboration, and consistency
in prevention, response, and problem-solving methods among
law enforcement, mental health, and other agencies and
jurisdictions serving institutions of higher education;
``(8) develop standardized formats and models for mutual
aid agreements and memoranda of understanding between campus
security agencies and other public safety organizations and
mental health agencies; and
``(9) report annually to Congress and the Attorney General
on activities performed by the Center during the previous 12
months.
``(c) Coordination With Available Resources.--In
establishing the Center, the Director of the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services shall--
``(1) consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Secretary of Education, and the Attorney General of each
State; and
``(2) coordinate the establishment and operation of the
Center with campus public safety resources that may be
available within the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Education.
``(d) Definition of Institution of Higher Education.--In
this section, the term `institution of higher education' has
the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$2,750,000 for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, over the past few years we have seen a number of
tragic incidents of violence at colleges and universities, including
the disastrous events at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois
University. Therefore, we have introduced the Center to Advance,
Monitor and Preserve University Security Safety Act of 2009, or the
CAMPUS Safety Act of 2009.
This bill will help schools to more effectively prevent such
incidents, and to more effectively respond if such events do occur. It
creates a National Center of Campus Public Safety, a program to be
administered through the Department of Justice.
The center will train campus safety agencies, promote research in
improving campus safety, and be a clearinghouse for campus safety
information. The director of the center will have authority to award
grants to institutions of higher learning to help them meet their
enhanced public safety goals.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of
the subcommittee, Mr. Gohmert, for his support of this important
bipartisan measure.
I urge colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In 2 weeks, teachers, students, alumni and friends of Northern
Illinois University will gather to commemorate the 1-year anniversary
of the tragic shootings that occurred at the university's campus. As
you may recall, on February 14, Valentines Day 2008, a gunman stormed a
classroom at NIU and opened fire, killing five students and wounding 16
others before killing himself.
Later this year, in April, similar groups of individuals associated
with Virginia Tech will commemorate the 2-year anniversary on that
campus shooting that killed 27 students and five faculty members. We
now know that the shooter was a mentally disturbed individual who was
able to purchase two handguns in any event. He brought those handguns
to the campus and began a shooting spree that spanned several hours and
occurred in both dormitories and classrooms throughout the campus
complex.
As we remember the tragic shootings at Northern Illinois University
and Virginia Tech, and think of the violence that occurs in public
schools across the country, it is appropriate for Congress to act and
provide resources to schools and law enforcement officials to help
protect our greatest resource, and that is our children in our schools.
School and college campuses should be safe environments for all
students to learn. Today, campus security requires much more than ever
before, including the campus police, emergency alert systems and
emergency response plans.
H.R. 748 authorizes the Department of Justice to establish a National
Center for Campus Public Safety to award grants to colleges and
universities and other nonprofit organizations. It also provides
education and training for campus public safety agencies, and promote
research to improve the security of colleges and our universities.
The center may coordinate with other Federal agencies to prevent and
respond to natural disasters, incidents of campus violence or even
other emergencies. The center also may promote the development of an
effective behavioral health threat assessment to prevent campus
violence.
In the 110th Congress, Chairman Bobby Scott and ranking member Louie
Gohmert of the Crime Subcommittee worked together to cosponsor a
version of this bill, which was passed by the House on a voice vote.
The Senate was unable to take up this bill last year, so many of my
colleagues reintroduced the bill this term. It is my hope that the
other body will consider and pass this legislation during the Congress.
Through this legislation and other programs across the country, we
can endeavor to prevent violence on our college and university
campuses. And I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of
H.R. 748.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I would inquire if the
gentleman has other speakers.
Mr. POE of Texas. Yes, two.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I reserve my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and
colleague from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
{time} 1430
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, there certainly is no higher priority
for all of us than the safety of our sons and daughters, and that
safety involves not only their physical safety but their financial
safety. The financial safety of our young men and women across this
country is held in the palms of the hands of this Congress. In fact,
this new liberal majority in Congress has been spending money so fast,
and we have only been in session for 17 legislative days.
Madam Speaker, in thinking about the financial safety of these young
people, if you look at just the time that Congress has been zeroed in
on this so-called stimulus bill, Congress has spent $1.3 trillion in 9
legislative days. Let me repeat that. We have this new liberal
majority. The country voted for change, but I am not sure this is the
change that people wanted or expected. The change we got was spending
money at an ever faster rate. $1.3 trillion has been spent by this
liberal majority in 9 legislative days. That means that this new
majority in Congress is spending money at a rate of $100 million a
minute. Now that needs to sink in for a minute. For the change that we
got,
[[Page H883]]
this new Congress is spending money at the rate of $100 million a
minute.
That is not unlike if I were to try to pay my mortgage with my
MasterCard. Now, everyone knows you cannot do that. I cannot pay my
mortgage with my MasterCard, but I would get a lot of frequent flyer
miles out of that. It is as dangerous, I should say, to pay your
mortgage with your MasterCard as it is for this Congress to imperil the
financial safety of future generations by spending borrowed money we do
not have.
This is an unprecedented spending spree that has much more to do with
rewarding the constituency of the liberal majority--the trial lawyers
and the labor unions--rather than stimulating the economy and
protecting the financial safety of future generations.
We fiscal conservatives understand instinctively that the best way to
protect the financial safety of future generations is to simply let
Americans keep more of their own money by cutting their taxes, by
giving them a tax-free holiday. How about that? That would be a
straightforward, simple, immediate way to inject money into the
economy, which is for people to spend and to invest as they wish rather
than for the Federal Government to make the united policy decision that
it is necessary to engage in deficit spending in order to stimulate the
economy.
Rather than pumping the money out to labor unions and to trial
lawyers and to new government programs and expanding the bureaucracy,
why don't we simply inject that money into giving Americans X number of
tax-free days where you keep 100 percent of your money, where you can
invest it, save it, and spend it as you wish? In my opinion, there is
no better way. I think that is something that every American can
understand. There is no simpler, quicker or better way to stimulate job
growth and to strengthen the economy than to simply let Americans keep
more of their hard-earned money. That is the way to protect the
financial stability of future generations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield the gentleman from Texas an extra minute.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, as we go through this debate today and
look to protect the physical and financial safety of future
generations, it is important for this Congress to remember that every
dollar we spend today is truly borrowed money. It is money that is
going to have to be paid for by future generations, and we have an
obligation--all of us as guardians of the Treasury--to remember the
financial safety and security of our children and grandchildren.
In every spending decision we make, why aren't we approaching this
from the perspective of we have got the biggest debt in the history of
the Nation? We have got the biggest deficit in the history of the
Nation. Therefore, the answer is ``no'' to new spending. We need to not
only cut taxes but to cut spending at the same time. We need to all of
us stay focused on what is truly in the best interests of these young
people. How do we best protect their physical and financial security?
By protecting the financial solvency of the United States of America.
Our most sacred obligation, it seems to me as Representatives of the
people, is to protect the financial safety and security of the Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. POE of Texas. I will yield to the gentleman 1 extra minute.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, I believe this is an unprecedented
spending spree. When you analyze the history of the Congress of the
United States, I would challenge anyone to find another time in our
history when the Congress has ever spent at the rate of $100 million a
minute. I don't think that has ever happened before. $100 million a
minute. $1.3 trillion in 9 days. Now, the entire annual budget of the
United States is about $900 trillion.
I have the privilege of serving on the Appropriations Committee, by
the way, where my starting answer on all spending requests is ``no.''
``Yes'' is very hard to earn. I am very careful about the few things
that I ask support for in the sciences and in medical scientific
research.
We have this new liberal majority in Congress. The change that this
new majority and the new President promised has led to a spending spree
of $100 million a minute. That has given this country a $1.3 trillion
so-called stimulus spending bill in 9 legislative days, exceeding the
annual budget of the United States, which is about $900 billion. This
is unprecedented. It is dangerous. It imperils the financial safety of
future generations, Madam Speaker, and I hope Congress throws this
spending bill out in favor of tax cuts.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the
gentleman has concluded and will yield back.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have an additional speaker. I
yield as much time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I know that the subject of this particular
piece of legislation has to do with campus safety, and I know we are
all concerned about campus safety. In fact, this is a separate bill
relating to campus safety, which makes the point, Madam Speaker:
If you look at the current proposal dealing with our economy and the
economic ruin that families are facing, there is $6 billion allocated
in that bill to colleges and to universities. That gives me great cause
for concern. What in the world does that have to do with stimulating
our economy and with allowing families and small businesses in this
country to get back on their feet?
Again, I would say to my colleague and friend from Virginia, as well
as to the gentleman from Texas, that the bill on the floor does have to
do with college campus safety. That is where a $6 billion allocation
appropriation to colleges and universities should belong, not in a
stimulus bill.
Listen, the people of this country are expecting Washington to
finally clean up its act and to respond accordingly so that we can get
our economy back on track. In fact, the latest Gallup poll that was
taken this weekend shows that only 38 percent of Americans support the
congressional Democrats' spending bill. Speaker Pelosi's bill in this
House contains billions of dollars of continued Washington spending in
the same old fashion. It has got plenty of pork in it. It has got $137
billion while creating 32 new Federal programs.
I would say that some of these programs have laudable goals. There is
no question that we need to address so many things going on in this
country. Right now, though, the priority is this economy, and when we
are talking about a stimulus plan, a stimulus plan should be focused
like a laser on the preservation, on the protection and on the creation
of jobs. Again, it may not be bad that we are looking to spend more
money in terms of helping safety on our college campuses, but that
belongs in a separate bill, not in a spending bill aimed at stimulating
this economy.
I would say that the Members on our side of the aisle continue to
want to work with the majority to try and craft a bill that delivers
results. President Obama was elected partly due to the hope that he
instilled in so many Americans that he would change the way that
Washington works, that we finally in this town would be accountable to
the people who pay the taxes so that we could deliver the results and
so that we could deliver on job creation and on opportunities for our
children and for the next generation.
Madam Speaker, the bill that passed this House last week does not
rise to that standard, and I implore the Speaker and her colleagues on
the other side of the aisle to work with us. We have put forward a plan
that involves real stimulus, that is very focused on the folks--on the
entrepreneurs, on the small businesspeople and on the self-employed--
who actually do create the jobs in this economy. We need to provide
them with relief. We need to provide relief to the working families--to
the taxpayers who are suffering under this heavy burden for which they
have got to pay every single day that they are at work.
Madam Speaker, again, I urge our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to work with us so that we can arrive at a bill that provides
true stimulus and that delivers results.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my
time.
[[Page H884]]
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would like to thank the other side for their support of the
underlying bill and for their comments that give rise to the challenge
we may have in actually funding the legislation.
Sixteen years ago, we had a Democratic majority, and we passed a
budget and an economic plan. It passed without a single Republican
vote--not one in the House, not one in the Senate. It was signed by
President Clinton. In 8 years, we eliminated the debt.
As a matter of fact, at the end of the 8 years, when Chairman
Greenspan was testifying before Congress, the questions he was asked
were questions like: What will happen when we pay off the national
debt? What will happen to the bond market? What will happen to interest
rates when we pay off the national debt?
It was anticipated that year that we were to clear up all of the debt
held by the public. The median income went up about $7,000. Tens of
millions of jobs were created. The Dow Jones industrial average more
than tripled. Then in 2001, the Republican plan was adopted--the
Republicans who have been lecturing on for the last few minutes about
the economy.
As a direct result of their plan, we had the worst job performance
since the Great Depression. The Dow Jones Industrial Average did not
triple. It went down. The median income actually went down. We did not
pay off the national debt. We almost doubled the national debt. We are
now in a situation where we have to dig ourselves out of that mess.
Everyone regrets the necessity of having to have a huge stimulus plan
to get us out of the mess, but that is what we have had to do. We would
like to listen to the other side and to their ideas, but unfortunately,
as a result of recent history, we know where those ideas will put us.
So we have a stimulus plan. Hopefully, it will get us out of the mess
we are in so that we will have the funds to fund the CAMPUS Safety Act
of 2009.
I would hope that the House would support the bill and would support
the authorization. Then the next job we will do will be to actually
fund it in order to get us out of the economic mess that we are in.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the
CAMPUS Safety Act of 2009, H.R. 748.
First let me start by thanking Congressman Scott for his continued
leadership on campus safety issues. He has been a steadfast supporter
of establishing a National Center for Campus Public Safety as well as
improving hate crime reporting on campuses under the federal Jeanne
Clery Act.
Creation of a National Center for Campus Public Safety grew out of
recommendations from a 2004 National Summit on Campus Public Safety
convened by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, or COPS Office. The purpose of the Center
is to support the field, foster collaboration and lasting
relationships, facilitate information sharing, and provide quality
education on safety issues facing colleges in a post-September 11, 2001
world.
After the tragic incidents of gun violence at Virginia Tech on April
16, 2007, at Northern Illinois University on February 14, 2008, and on
other campuses across the country, we were reminded just how important
this work is and it took on a new urgency. The Center will be able to
help campuses create partnerships with mental health professionals and
others to catch problems before they escalate and implement proven
strategies to respond should another tragedy strike.
This effort is also consistent with and an important follow-up to
legislation I sponsored that was enacted last year as part of the
Higher Education Opportunity Act, P.L. 110-315. This new provision,
known as the Virginia Tech Victims Campus Emergency Response Policy and
Notification Act, or ``VTV Act'' and a part of the federal Jeanne Clery
Act, requires institutions to enact comprehensive emergency response
plans that include means to issue immediate warnings when an emergency
threatens the campus.
I look forward to the Center working with the U.S. Department of
Education, the agency with jurisdiction over the Clery Act, and
campuses across the country to help them fully implement these life-
saving notification requirements. Making sure that institutions have a
central resource to turn to for assistance with this will be one of the
most important things that we in Congress can do to help secure our
Nation's campuses.
Important groundwork for the Center has already been laid. In 2006
the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators,
Inc., IACLEA, received a grant to develop a strategic plan for the
Center. Among other things they convened an advisory board comprised of
key constituency groups to help guide this process.
I was especially pleased to see that a leading voice for students and
families on campus safety issues--Security On Campus, Inc., SOC--was
included at the table. It is imperative that SOC and other groups that
represent the interests of those the Center is intended to protect,
along with campus public safety professionals, continue to be heard as
this process moves forward.
I would encourage the Attorney General and his staff to make sure
that the COPS Office continues to reach out to diverse constituency
groups and organizations that may have important resources to bring to
bear.
Establishment of a National Center for Campus Public Safety will be a
tremendous asset for our Nation's colleges and universities as they
work to protect their students, employees, and others on campus.
I support the bill and ask my colleagues to join me.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 748.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________