[House Report 104-776]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-776
_______________________________________________________________________
MONITORING OF STUDENT RIGHT TO KNOW AND CAMPUS SECURITY ACT OF 1990
_______
September 5, 1996.--Rewferred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Goodling , from the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H. Res. 470]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, to
whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 470) expressing the
sense of the Congress that the Department of Education should
play a more active role in the monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the provisions of the Higher Education Act of
1965 related to campus crime, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the resolution be agreed to.
Purpose
The purpose of House Resolution 470 is to express the
sense of the Congress that the Department of Education should
play a more active role in monitoring and enforcing compliance
with the requirements of the Higher Education Act of 1965
related to campus crime.
Legislative Action
House Resolution 470 was introduced on June 27, 1996 by
Mr. Goodling and Mr. McKeon. On August 1, 1996, the Committee
on Economic and Educational Opportunities assembled to consider
House Resolution 470. The Committee adopted the bill by a voice
vote.
Background and Need for Legislation/Committee Views
During the 101st Congress, Mr. Goodling introduced the
``Campus Crime and Security Awareness Act.'' It was enacted as
part of the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act. The
law requires any recipient of Title IV student aid to report to
students, faculty, and prospective students (upon request) once
a year on the number of crimes reported in the following
categories: murder; sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible;
robbery; aggravated assault; burglary and motor vehicle theft.
These statistics must be made available for the current year
and the two previous years. Schools are also required to report
on the number of arrests for the following crimes: liquor-law
violations; drug-abuse violations; and weapons possessions. In
addition, in order to aid in the prevention of crimes on
campus, schools were to make timely reports to the campus
community on those crimes considered to be a threat to other
students and employees.
During consideration of the Higher Education Act the
following year, Congress amended the law to require a statement
of policy regarding the institution's campus sexual assault
programs to prevent sex offenses and the procedures to follow
when such an offense occurs. In addition, the so-called
``Buckley'' Act (part of the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act) was amended to allow the release of law
enforcement records kept for law enforcement purposes.
During a hearing held on June 6, 1996 by the Subcommittee
on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning,
some concerns were raised that colleges and universities were
not accurately reporting their crime statistics. In addition,
several witnesses did not believe that the Department of
Education considered the enforcement of the Campus Security Act
a priority. In fact, the Department has failed to provide a
report to Congress with respect to crime statistics which was
due on September 1, 1995.
Concerns have also been raised with respect to the
definition of education records which are protected under the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Many
individuals believe that records of institutional disciplinary
actions taken against students accused of criminal and other
non-academic misconduct should not be considered education
records under FERPA and should be available to the public.
In a recent letter, Secretary Riley has indicated that the
Department is looking at ways to ensure that auditors and
Department program review staff are provided detailed
instructions on checking compliance with the Campus Security
Act. The Committee intends to keep a close watch on these
measures and appreciates Secretary Riley's efforts to address
the concerns raised at the Subcommittee hearing.
House Resolution 470 puts the Committee's support on the
record for the actions Secretary Riley intends to take with
respect to improving and ensuring compliance with the Campus
Security Act. It will also make it clear that the Committee
views this issue as a top priority and will expect the
Department of Education to follow through on its commitments to
fully implement the Campus Security Act as Congress intended.
It is imperative that colleges and universities comply with the
requirements of the Campus Security Act and that the Department
of Education give priority status to their enforcement
responsibilities. These are essential actions if we are going
to accomplish our goal of protecting students from crime on our
nation's college campuses.
Summary
House Resolution 470 calls on the Department of Education
to make the monitoring of compliance and enforcement of the
Campus Security Act a priority in order for students to have
information vital for their own safety on our college campuses.
Section-by-Section
The Resolution states: ``That in order for students to have
information vital for their own safety on our Nation's college
campuses, it is the sense of the Congress that the Department
of Education should make the monitoring of compliance and
enforcement of the provisions of section 485(f) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 with respect to compiling and
disseminating required crime statistics and campus policies a
priority.''
Oversight Findings of the Committee
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives and clause 2(b)(1) of
rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the body of this report.
Inflationary Impact Statement
In compliance with clause 2(l)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that
the enactment into law of H.Res. 470 will have no significant
inflationary impact on prices and costs in the operation of the
national economy. It is the judgment of the Committee that the
inflationary impact of this legislation as a component of the
federal budget is negligible.
Government Reform and Oversight
With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of
Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and
recommendations form the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight on the subject of H.Res. 470.
Committee Estimate
Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out
H.Res. 470. However, clause 7(d) of that rule provides that
this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included
in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Application of Law to Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch. This bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the
Department of Education should play a more active role in
monitoring and enforcing compliance with the requirements of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 related to campus crime and as
such relates to the legislative branch.
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget & Impoundment
Control Act requires a statement of whether the provisions of
the reported bill include unfunded mandates; the bill expresses
the sense of the Congress that the Department of Education
should play a more active role in monitoring and enforcing
compliance with the requirements of the Higher Education Act of
1965 related to campus crime and as such does not contain any
unfunded mandates. The Committee also received a letter
regarding unfunded mandates from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office. See infra.
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget
Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of
rule XI of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to
requirements of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for H.Res. 470 from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 23, 1996.
Hon. William F. Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
has reviewed H.Res. 470, a bill expressing the sense of
Congress that the Department of Education should play a more
active role in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the
provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 related to
campus crime. This bill was ordered reported by the Committee
on Economic and Educational Opportunities on August 1, 1996.
This resolution expresses a sense of Congress and does not
affect any federal, state, local, or tribal law. Passage of
H.Res. 470 would not affect the federal budget, and thus, pay-
as-you-go procedures would not apply.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah
Kalcevic, who can be reached at 226-2820.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.