[Senate Report 110-183]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                       Calendar No. 382
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    110-183

======================================================================



 
       SCHOOL SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

               September 21, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Leahy, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                           SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 2084]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, having considered an 
original bill (S. 2084), to promote school safety, improved law 
enforcement, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon 
without amendment, and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose of the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act 
     of 2007..........................................................1
 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration..................9
III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill..........................12
 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................19
  V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation....................................20
 VI. Conclusion......................................................20
VII. Supplemental Views of Senator Kennedy...........................21
VIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........26


I. Purpose of the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 
                                  2007

    The Judiciary Committee considered the School Safety and 
Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007 (SSLEIA) as an original 
bill on August 2, 2007. The bill, as amended, is a legislative 
package combining a number of initiatives, with some 
modifications. They are: (1) the School Safety Enhancements Act 
of 2007 (S. 1217), (2) the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 
2007 (H.R. 2640), (3) the Equity in Law Enforcement Act (S. 
1448), (4) the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007 (S. 
376), (5) the Prevention Resources for Eliminating Criminal 
Activity in our Neighborhoods (PRECAUTION) Act (S. 1521), and 
(6) the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007 (S. 735).
    The bill provides a responsible and effective congressional 
response to school incidents that have occurred in the recent 
past and, in particular, to the tragedy that took place on 
April 16, 2007 on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute 
and State University (Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, Virginia. 
The bill is intended in part to address the recurring problem 
of violence in our schools through additional support to law 
enforcement in both public and private educational settings, 
and to make needed improvements to the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System. Specifically, the bill seeks 
to enlist the States as partners in the dissemination of 
critical information about the purchasers of firearms, to 
distribute federal dollars to improve the safety and security 
of our schools from kindergarten through higher education, to 
provide equitable benefits to campus safety officers protecting 
private colleges and universities, and to evaluate effectively 
and implement crime prevention programs in school settings, and 
elsewhere. The bill also makes improvements to two existing 
laws: it streamlines certification procedures under existing 
federal law that permit qualified law enforcement to carry 
concealed firearms across State lines, and strengthens the 
federal terrorist hoax statute to punish disruptive and costly 
``false alarms'' that can create turmoil in schools and on 
college campuses.
    The Committee is mindful that no legislative response will 
be a panacea for school violence in this country, but the bill 
addresses some of the most critical school safety and law 
enforcement needs in the wake of the Virginia Tech 
tragedy.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\On August 22, 2007, three internal review committees 
commissioned by Virginia Tech President Charles W. Steger to study the 
Virginia Tech incident presented reports recommending specific campus 
safety improvements, among other proposals. The committees' 
recommendations include the installation of interior classroom door 
locks, enhanced communications systems to better alert students to 
dangerous situations, and the establishment of a public safety building 
on campus. The bill's new grant program for higher education would 
permit funding for these critical safety initiatives.
    In addition, on August 30, 2007, a panel of experts commissioned by 
Virginia Governor Tom Kaine (the Virginia Tech Review Panel) issued its 
findings based on a four-month long investigation of the incident and 
its aftermath. The Virginia Tech Review Panel offered more than 70 
recommendations directed to colleges, universities, mental health 
providers, law enforcement officials, emergency service providers, 
public officials, and law makers. The bill specifically responds to a 
number of recommendations from the Review Panel related to improve 
school safety planning and reporting information to the national 
instant criminal background check system. See Mass Shootings at 
Virginia Tech April 16, 2007: Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel 
reported to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia, 
August 2007 at Chapters II (p. 19), VI (p. 76), and VIII (p. 99). The 
Virginia Tech Review Panel report has a broad scope with many specific 
recommendations and will be subject to additional review and 
consideration by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             A. BACKGROUND

    On April 16, 2007, a Virginia Tech senior named Seung-Hui 
Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 25 in two separate 
incidents on the Virginia Tech campus, before committing 
suicide. The Virginia Tech massacre was the deadliest to have 
occurred on a U.S. college campus. Cho killed his first two 
victims at around 7:15 a.m. at a dormitory building. 
Approximately two hours later, Choentered a classroom building, 
chained the three main entrance doors shut, walked up to the second 
floor classrooms, and began shooting teachers and students. After an 
approximately 9-minute rampage that resulted in an additional 30 deaths 
and dozens of injuries, Cho turned one of his weapons on himself just 
as law enforcement officials finally gained entrance to the classroom 
building.
    Two years before these tragic events, Cho had been 
adjudicated mentally ill by a Virginia special justice after 
having been accused of stalking two female students, which 
prohibited him from possessing a firearm under federal law. 
Nevertheless, he was able to purchase two weapons that were 
used in the massacre after he passed the background check. The 
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is the 
federal law enforcement database containing the names of 
persons prohibited from purchasing firearms, and it is designed 
to prevent such purchases. The Virginia Tech incident 
underscored the need for improvements. In addition, the 
incident revealed that schools are soft targets for criminals 
and for would-be terrorists. In most cases they employ only a 
small number of security personnel and have only basic security 
measures in place to guard against deadly attacks. Indeed, it 
has been reported that one of the crucial security failures 
during the Virginia Tech incident was that the classrooms Cho 
entered during his rampage had no interior door locks.\2\ 
Students and faculty were, therefore, unable to secure 
themselves in the classrooms while awaiting the arrival of law 
enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\See Dena Potter, Experts Say Inside Locks on Classroom Doors 
Would Save Lives, Associated Press, July 29, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                B. NEED FOR LEGISLATION AND BILL SUMMARY

1. School safety--kindergarten through higher education

    The Virginia Tech incident cast light on how vulnerable our 
campuses are to attack by a person or group of people intent on 
inflicting mass casualties. It also highlights how small a role 
the Federal Government currently plays in helping to secure 
institutions of higher education. Congress mandates through the 
Clery Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f), that all colleges and 
universities receiving federal financial aid collect and 
publicly disclose information about crime on or near campus.\3\ 
But according to the Congressional Research Service, there is 
currently no federal funding targeted to help approximately 
2,500 colleges and universities comply with existing federal 
campus security requirements, let alone to support campus 
safety initiatives.\4\ Around 15 million students attend 
institutions of higher education in the United States, but 
schools currently must rely on sub-grants from State or local 
governments to defray the costs of ensuring the safety of 
students, or must fund school safety initiatives and 
improvements entirely themselves. At a time when the risk of 
terrorist attacks and other violence on campus has never been 
higher, the Federal Government must play a more significant 
role in securing our schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Eastern Michigan University's failure to timely inform its 
student body of a murder that took place on campus has recently raised 
questions about the level of compliance with the Clery Act's 
requirements. See Campus Security is a Crime, USA Today, July 23, 2007, 
at A10.
    \4\See Rebecca R. Skinner and Gail McCallion, School and Campus 
Safety Programs and Requirements in the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act and Higher Education Act, Congressional Research Service, 
April 27, 2007, at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Students attending our elementary and secondary schools 
face many of the same dangers as those attending institutions 
of higher education, and there are an additional 55 million 
students enrolled in elementary and secondary schools 
nationwide.\5\ For example, on August 24, 2006, an ex-convict 
shot four people in two homes and an elementary school in the 
rural community of Essex, Vermont, before unsuccessfully trying 
to kill himself with two shots to the head.\6\ And on October 
2, 2006, a gunman killed 10 Amish schoolgirls at Wolf Rock 
School in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, before committing 
suicide.\7\ There is an existing federal grant program to 
enhance security for elementary and secondary schools,\8\ but 
grants from that program cannot currently be used to fund 
capital improvements by school districts, or to implement more 
specific safety-oriented measures, such as the creation of tip 
lines and the installation of surveillance equipment, to report 
and deter potential dangerous situations. In addition, the 
funding of that program has not been significantly adjusted 
since the program's creation to reflect the increased risks 
faced by our school-aged children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See id. at 1.
    \6\See Deadly Rampage in Quiet Vermont Town, Boston Globe, Aug. 25, 
2006, at A1.
    \7\See Raymond McCaffrey and Michael E. Ruane, An Amish Community 
Grieves for Its Little Ones, The Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2006.
    \8\See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3797a (the ``Secure Our Schools'' grant 
program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title I of SSLEIA (the School Safety Enhancements Act of 
2007) takes concrete steps to improve school safety both at the 
elementary and secondary school level (K-12), and for college 
and university campuses. The K-12 portion would expand the 
Secure Our Schools grant program by adding tip lines, 
surveillance equipment, and capital improvements to schools as 
approved uses for the grant program, and by increasing annual 
appropriation authorization for this purpose from $30,000,000 
to $50,000,000. This increase in federal funding is necessary 
to ease the burden on local school districts for implementing 
security enhancements. These improvements will make our 
elementary and secondary schools safer by funding much-needed 
infrastructure improvements, and they will empower students to 
report potentially dangerous situations to school 
administrators before they occur. The Secure Our Schools 
program has, since its inception in 2000, delivered millions of 
dollars to school districts nationwide to make critical safety 
improvements. Adding capital improvements, among other new 
uses, for these funds, and raising the level of funding to 
allow for greater participation of school districts, will help 
schools make significant infrastructure changes to include the 
most current safety and technology improvements.
    Through its higher education component, Title I also 
authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to establish 
and operate a National Center for Campus Public Safety, to be 
funded at $2.75 million annually. The Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services recommended the 
establishment of a National Center for Campus Public Safety 
following its 2005 summit, but that recommendation was never 
implemented by Congress.\9\ Funding this Center will support 
research as well as hands on training for campus safety 
officers at our nation's colleges and universities that will 
put campus safety officers in the best position to 
appropriately respond to future dangerous situations on campus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See National Summit on Campus Public Safety, U.S. Department of 
Justice COPS Office, at 7 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title I also creates a new Justice Department-administered 
matching grant program to help pay for improved campus security 
at institutions of higher education, with annual authorized 
appropriations of $50,000,000. This would be the first federal 
grant program that will permit institutions of higher education 
to apply directly for federal grants. The Committee recognizes 
that colleges and universities serve and protect not only their 
students, but also the wider community, which oftentimes 
participates in and contributes to events on campus. Campuses 
also contain some of our most prized and sensitive assets, such 
as world-class research facilities and even nuclear reactors. 
There is a strong federal interest in ensuring the safety and 
security of colleges and universities, and the creation of a 
new grant program benefiting institutions of higher education 
is an efficient and effective way to enhance the protection of 
the millions of students attending colleges and universities 
nationwide, as well as the surrounding communities.\10\ The 
Committee believes that significant investment in the safety of 
our nation's young people, and in the protection of the vital 
resources associated with all educational institutions, is 
warranted and necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement 
Associations (IACLEA) and campus police forces from around the country 
have strongly endorsed the creation of a National Center for Public 
Safety and the new matching grant program for institutions of higher 
education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Federal/State improvement in NICS reporting

    The Virginia Tech incident also demonstrated the need for 
State and federal collaboration and information sharing to 
ensure that those who are not legally eligible to purchase 
firearms will be prevented from doing so. The Virginia Tech 
incident made clear that the NICS reporting requirements must 
be reevaluated and improved.
    Title II of the bill incorporates the NICS Improvement 
Amendments Act of 2007 (H.R. 2640),\11\ which makes substantial 
improvements to the NICS system. The senseless loss of life at 
Virginia Tech revealed deep flaws in the transfer of 
information related to gun purchases between the States and the 
Federal Government, and this bill provides a comprehensive 
approach to correct those and other vulnerabilities within 
NICS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\H.R. 2640 was passed by the House by voice vote on June 13, 
2007, and reported to the Senate the next day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The National Instant Criminal Background Check System was 
created with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence 
Prevention Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-159), which mandated the 
creation of a national instant background check system. Under 
federal law, individuals are prohibited from possessing a 
firearm based on certain disqualifying information, such as 
being a convicted felon, a fugitive, a drug addict, committed 
to a mental institution, or an illegal alien.\12\ Under the 
Brady law, a licensed firearm dealer is required to check NICS 
prior to any firearm transfer to make sure a person is not 
disqualified from possessing a firearm under federal law. Every 
year approximately 8 million such inquires are made to NICS, 
and approximately 1.9% of potential buyers (896,000) are denied 
on the basis of disqualifying information. This is one of the 
primary tools for preventing felons and other disqualified 
persons from obtaining firearms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Under Section 922(g), it is unlawful to possess, ship, or 
receive a firearm in interstate commerce for any person (1) who has 
been convicted of a felony offense, (2) who is a fugitive from justice, 
(3) who is an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance, 
(4) who has been adjudicated a mental defective or has been committed 
to a mental institution, (5) who is illegally or unlawfully in the 
United States, (6) who has been dishonorably discharged from the 
military, (7) who has renounced their U.S. citizenship, (8) who is 
subject to a domestic violence restraining order, or (9) who has been 
convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. See 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 922(g). It is also unlawful for any person who has been indicted 
for a felony offense to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in 
interstate commerce. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The NICS system, however, is only as good as the records 
provided by federal and State authorities to its databases, and 
it continues to suffer from significant gaps. For example, more 
than 90 percent of disqualifying mental health records are not 
in NICS, and only two out of 50 States regularly report mental 
health records to NICS. Similarly, NICS has incomplete records 
or cannot access records electronically for many other 
categories of disqualifying information. This can cause 
significant errors and delays within NICS, and as many as 3,000 
people each year pass the NICS check even though they are 
disqualified from possessing a firearm. This bill is needed to 
close those gaps and to improve the effectiveness of NICS.
    This bill, for the first time, creates a legal regime where 
disqualifying mental health records, both at the State and 
federal level, will more effectively be reported into NICS. The 
bill requires all federal agencies to report mental health and 
all other disqualifying records to NICS, as well as regularly 
correct, update, and remove records as necessary to make NICS 
accurate. The bill also directs federal agencies to develop 
relief from disabilities programs so that those who recover 
from disqualifying mental health conditions, drug addiction, or 
who become citizens can be removed from NICS.
    For the States, this bill creates significant incentives to 
report all disqualifying information to NICS and to improve the 
electronic, automated reporting of this information. The 
primary incentive is a waiver of a 10% matching requirement for 
federal grant money to improve NICS once a State reports 90% of 
its disqualifying records. The bill also provides two grant 
programs for States to improve their information sharing 
systems and to make sure their records are electronically 
available in NICS. The penalties are graduated over time to 
give the Attorney General the authority to withhold up to 5% of 
a State's Byrne grant funding if the States do not meet the 90% 
compliance target.
    To accomplish these goals, the bill authorizes up to $400 
million a year for 5 years to give States the ability to make 
the costly technological improvements necessary to improve 
NICS. These resources are necessary to make sure federal and 
State government work in a partnership to improve NICS, and 
that States do not face unfunded mandates.

3. Equalization of benefits for public and private campus law 
        enforcement

    Many of the first responders to the Virginia Tech incident 
were campus safety officers.\13\ Their response demonstrated 
the critical role that campus safety plays as a first line of 
defense in protecting college and university campuses. Yet 
under current federal law, campus safety officers employed at 
private institutions of higher education do not have access to 
critical death and disability benefits or to life-saving 
devices to which their publicly-employed colleagues have 
access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\See David Maraniss, ``That Was the Desk I Chose to Die Under,'' 
The Washington Post, April 19, 2007 (identifying Virginia Tech Police 
Chief Wendell Flinchum as conducting the initial investigation into the 
early morning shootings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title III of SSLEIA (the Equity in Law Enforcement Act) 
remedies the inequality between public and private safety 
officers by making sworn law enforcement officers who work for 
private institutions of higher education, as well as rail 
carriers, eligible for death and disability benefits, and for 
funds administered under the Byrne Grant program and the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership program. Providing this equitable 
treatment is in the best interest of our nation's educators and 
students, and will serve to place the support of the Federal 
Government behind the dedicated law enforcement officers who 
serve and protect private colleges and universities across the 
country.

4. Strategies for curbing school-based violence

    The Virginia Tech incident also demonstrated that the 
Government must aggressively pursue the most effective 
strategies to reduce violence in schools beginning at the 
elementary school level, so that educators and law enforcement 
can better identify and prevent dangerous situations at our 
schools.
    Title V of SSLEIA incorporates the PRECAUTION Act. The 
inclusion of the PRECAUTION Act in this bill reinforces the 
importance of incorporating crime prevention and intervention 
strategies into any crime-fighting plan, especially those 
directed at protecting our schools and children. This title 
creates a national commission to evaluate existing information 
on crime prevention and intervention strategies and identify 
those strategies that are most ready for replication in 
communities across the country, including school-based 
programs. In the course of its work, the national commission 
created by this provision will identify the most successful 
violence prevention and intervention strategies that schools 
can employ to prevent crime, and will issue a public report 
that local law enforcement and school boards can turn to when 
evaluating the most effective ways to keep their students safe.
    In addition, this title directs the National Institute of 
Justice to administer a grant program to fund pilot programs in 
promising areas of crime prevention and intervention 
programming identified by the commission as meriting further 
research and development. This grant program will help develop 
the sorts of cutting-edge prevention and intervention programs 
that can be utilized in schools, and will result in a second 
report from the commission detailing the results of those pilot 
programs and how schools across the country can implement them. 
This title authorizes a total of $24 million over five years 
for the commission's operations and the pilot programs. The 
PRECAUTION Act's endorsements include the National Sheriffs' 
Association, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, the Wisconsin Chiefs 
of Police Association, the Council for Excellence in 
Government, the American Society of Criminology, and the 
Consortium of Social Science Associations.

5. Improvements to existing laws governing concealed carry permits and 
        terrorist hoaxes

    The bill makes changes to two existing laws--one 
establishing protocols governing when qualified active and 
retired law enforcement officers may lawfully carry concealed 
weapons across State lines, and the other improving on an 
existing terrorist hoax statute--which the Committee believes 
will also meaningfully improve the safety and security of the 
public.
    Title IV of SSLEIA (the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act 
of 2007) revises the procedure by which qualified retired law 
enforcement officers may be certified under existing law (18 
U.S.C. Sec. 926C) to carry concealed weapons across State 
lines. To accommodate varying administrative circumstances from 
State to State, the title adds flexibility to the way in which 
a retired qualified officer may obtain the required 
certification demonstrating that the individual has met active 
duty standards for concealed firearm carriage. For example, 
where a State law enforcement agency cannot conduct the 
required testing of a retired officer, that officer may obtain 
the testing and certification from a firearms instructor 
certified by the State to test active duty officers.
    This title also amends existing law (18 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 926B, 926C) to clarify that Amtrak and executive 
branch police officers are law enforcement officers for 
purposes of LEOSA. Finally, this title reduces from 15 to 10 
years the length of service requirement applicable to retired 
law enforcement officers seeking certification to carry 
concealed weapons, and no longer requires that an officer be 
entitled to ``non-forfeitable'' benefits for purposes of LEOSA.
    Congress passed the 2003 bill in recognition of the fact 
that law enforcement officers are never off duty and face 
lasting dangers due to the nature of their profession. It 
serves the public when we permit qualified officers, with a 
demonstrated commitment to law enforcement and no adverse 
employment history, to protect themselves, their families, and 
the public.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\This is the second time this year that a bipartisan majority of 
the Judiciary Committee has voted to report favorably the provisions 
included in Title IV of the comprehensive bill. These provisions amend 
the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act that the Judiciary Committee 
favorably reported, the Senate passed, and that Congress enacted in 
2004. The supplemental views fail to identify even a single instance 
where the interstate privileges at the heart of LEOSA have produced 
negative results. Rather, the two tragic examples therein discussed 
conflate criminal intent and action with lawful firearms possession.
    The reality is that 48 States have laws that permit some form of 
concealed firearms carriage for any eligible citizen. The 
clarifications of LEOSA in Title IV, which refine the existing 
interstate concealed carry privileges limited to trained law 
enforcement officers, cannot be said to greatly alter what the vast 
majority of States have already decided is an appropriate privilege for 
private citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, Title VI of SSLEIA incorporates the Terrorist Hoax 
Improvements Act of 2007, which would improve current law 
relating to hoaxes about terrorist threats, and would 
strengthen and expand criminal penalties to punish hoaxes. 
Specifically, it (1) expands 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1038, the terrorism 
hoax statute, so that it punishes hoaxes about any terrorist 
offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 (the U.S. 
Code's official list of terrorist offenses); (2) increases the 
maximum penalties for hoaxes about the death or injury of a 
U.S. soldier during wartime; (3) expands current law's civil 
liability provisions to allow first responders and others to 
seek reimbursement from a party who perpetrates a hoax and 
becomes aware that first responders believe that a terrorist 
offense is taking place but fails to inform authorities that no 
such event has occurred; and (4) clarifies that threatening 
communications are punishable under federal law even if they 
are directed at an organization rather than a natural person. 
As evidenced by the aftermath of the Virginia Tech tragedy, 
colleges and universities must be able to respond to dangerous 
situations in an effective and disciplined way. This component 
of SSLEIA will deter hoaxes on campus and elsewhere, which will 
better enable first responders to do their jobs 
effectively.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\A Committee Report for the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 
2007 was filed after that bill was first reported out of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee in May 2007. See Senate Report 110-061 (May 4, 
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration


              A. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SSLEIA COMPONENTS

1. Title I--School Safety Improvements Act

    In 2000, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into 
law, legislation including the Secure Our Schools grant program 
(P.L. 106-386). On February 17, 2007, Senator Boxer introduced 
in the Senate S. 677, titled the School Safety Enhancements Act 
of 2007, with seven co-sponsors. The bill would make 
improvements and increase funding to the Secure our Schools 
grant program. OnApril 25, 2007, Senator Boxer re-introduced 
the School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007 as S. 1217, with six co-
sponsors, to include a higher education component.
    In its first title, SSLEIA incorporates the K-12 component 
of S. 1217, with slight modifications. SSLEIA replaces the 
higher education component of S. 1217 with two new sections 
that address higher education safety needs within the Judiciary 
Committee's jurisdiction.

2. Title II--NICS Amendment Improvements Act of 2007

    On June 11, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy 
introduced the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (H.R. 
2640), with 17 co-sponsors, in response to the incident at 
Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. On June 13, 2007, the 
bill was passed by voice vote in the House.

3. Title III--Equity in Law Enforcement Act

    On May 22, 2007, Senator Reed introduced the Equity in Law 
Enforcement Act, S. 1448. The Equity in Law Enforcement Act was 
incorporated in its entirety, unmodified, into Title III of 
SSLEIA.

4. Title IV--Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007

    In 2004, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into 
law, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-
277). The Senate version of the bill (S. 253) was co-sponsored 
by 70 Senators and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee 
on March 6, 2003 by a vote of 18-1 (Senator Kennedy 
dissenting). It was agreed to in the House of Representatives 
by a voice vote on June 23, 2004, and passed by unanimous 
consent in the Senate on July 7, 2004. The President signed the 
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 into law on June 
22, 2004.
    The legislative history of the Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Act of 2003 is recounted in Senate Report 108-029.
    Chairman Leahy introduced S. 376, the Law Enforcement 
Officers Safety Act of 2007, on January 24, 2007. The bill was 
first listed on the Committee's agenda on March 1, 2007. The 
measure was held over for a number of weeks until May 15, 2007, 
when the Committee reported the bill favorably by voice vote 
and without amendment. A Committee report on this bill has been 
filed as Senate Report 110-150. Its provisions were 
incorporated into Title IV of the bill.

5. Title V--PRECAUTION Act

    Senators Feingold and Specter introduced the PRECAUTION 
Act, S. 1521, on May 24, 2007. The PRECAUTION Act was 
incorporated into Title V of the bill.

6. Title VI--Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act

    Senator Kennedy introduced the Terrorist Hoax Improvements 
Act of 2007, S. 735, on April 2, 2007, with six co-
sponsors.\16\ The bill was first listed on the Judiciary 
Committee's agenda on April 12, 2007, and the Committee adopted 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the bill without 
objection. A Committee report on this bill has been filed as 
Senate Report 110-61. The bill has been reported to the full 
Senate and its provisions are incorporated into Title VI of the 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\There was no hearing on this bill in Committee, but on 
September 13, 2004, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Technology and Homeland Security held a hearing where witnesses 
testified about the need for strong federal laws to punish hoaxes about 
terrorist threats. The Justice Department witness commented at the 
hearing that as a result of post-9/11 hoaxes, ``[m]any people were 
inconvenienced, and emergency responders were forced to waste a great 
deal of time and effort.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      B. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF SSLEIA

    On August 2, 2007, the Committee originated the School 
Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007 as an 
original bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill was 
first listed on the Committee's agenda on July 5th. The 
Committee considered the bill on August 2nd, a quorum was 
present, and the Committee voted unanimously to order the bill 
to be reported to the Senate, as amended.
    During the Committee's consideration of the bill, 10 
amendments were offered. Six amendments received a roll call 
vote. Four amendments were adopted without objection. The 
amendments are noted below, with an asterisk indicating a vote 
by proxy.
    Senator Hatch offered an amendment to reduce the federal 
matching share for the K-12 and higher education grant programs 
contained in Title I from 80% to 50%, and the amendment was 
accepted on a rollcall vote. The vote record is as follows:
    Yeas (10): Brownback (Kan.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn 
(Texas),* Feinstein (Calif.),* Graham (S.C.),* Grassley (Iowa), 
Hatch (Utah), Kyl (Ariz.), Sessions, J. (Ala.), Specter (Pa.).
    Nays (9): Biden (Del.),* Cardin (Md.), Durbin (Ill.), 
Feingold (Wis.), Kennedy, E. (Mass.), Kohl (Wis.),* Leahy 
(Vt.), Schumer (N.Y.), Whitehouse (R.I.).*
    Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to require the use of 
``microstamping'' technology by manufacturers of certain 
firearms. This technology purports to be a superior identifier 
of handguns totraditional serial numbers. The amendment was 
rejected on a roll call vote. The vote record is as follows:
    Yeas (8): Biden (Del.),* Cardin (Md.),* Durbin (Ill.), 
Feinstein (Calif.),* Kennedy, E. (Mass.), Kohl (Wis.),* Schumer 
(N.Y.), Whitehouse (R.I.).
    Nays (11): Brownback (Kan.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn 
(Texas),* Feingold (Wis.), Graham (S.C.), Grassley (Iowa), 
Hatch (Utah), Kyl (Ariz.), Leahy (Vt.), Sessions, J. (Ala.), 
Specter (Pa.).
    Senator Kennedy offered an amendment that would have 
altered and restricted the eligibility requirements for 
officers to be certified for interstate firearms carriage under 
LEOSA. The amendment was rejected on a rollcall vote. The vote 
record is as follows:
    Yeas (9): Biden (Del.),* Cardin (Md.),* Durbin (Ill.), 
Feingold (Wis.), Feinstein (Calif.),* Kennedy, E. (Mass.), Kohl 
(Wis.),* Schumer (N.Y.), Whitehouse (R.I.).
    Nays (10): Brownback (Kan.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn 
(Texas), Graham (S.C.), Grassley (Iowa), Hatch (Utah), Kyl 
(Ariz.), Leahy (Vt.), Sessions, J. (Ala.),* Specter (Pa.).
    Senator Kennedy offered an amendment that would have 
restricted the range of standards by which a retired officer 
could be certified for interstate firearms carriage under 
LEOSA. The amendment was rejected on a rollcall vote. The vote 
record is as follows:
    Yeas (6): Coburn (Okla.), Cardin (Md.), Feingold (Wis.),* 
Kennedy, E. (Mass.), Kohl (Wis.),* Whitehouse (R.I.).
    Nays (13): Biden (Del.),* Brownback (Kan.), Cornyn (Texas), 
Durbin (Ill.), Feinstein (Calif.),* Graham (S.C.), Grassley 
(Iowa), Hatch (Utah), Kyl (Ariz.), Leahy (Vt.), Schumer 
(N.Y.),* Sessions, J. (Ala.), Specter (Pa.).
    Senator Kyl offered an amendment that would have reduced 
the amount of authorized funding for the improvement of NICS. 
The amendment was rejected on a rollcall vote. The vote record 
is as follows:
    Yeas (9): Brownback (Kan.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn (Texas), 
Graham (S.C.), Grassley (Iowa), Hatch (Utah), Kyl (Ariz.), 
Sessions, J. (Ala.), Specter (Pa.).
    Nays (10): Biden (Del.),* Cardin (Md.), Durbin (Ill.), 
Feingold (Wis.),* Feinstein (Calif.),* Kennedy, E. (Mass.), 
Kohl (Wis.),* Leahy (Vt.), Schumer (N.Y.),* Whitehouse (R.I.).
    Senator Coburn offered an amendment that would have 
prohibited the Attorney General from waiving a State's 50-50 
matching requirement for school safety funding. The amendment 
was rejected on a rollcall vote. The vote record is as follows:
    Yeas (9): Brownback (Kan.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn 
(Texas),* Graham (S.C.), Grassley (Iowa), Hatch (Utah), Kyl 
(Ariz.), Sessions, J. (Ala.), Specter (Pa.).
    Nays (10): Biden (Del.),* Cardin (Md.), Durbin (Ill.), 
Feingold (Wis.),* Feinstein (Calif.),* Kennedy, E. (Mass.), 
Kohl (Wis.),* Leahy (Vt.), Schumer (N.Y.),* Whitehouse (R.I.).
    Senator Feinstein offered an amendment to Title II 
clarifying that a department or agency may provide information 
about persons who have been adjudicated to be mentally 
incompetent to stand trial, or who were acquitted by reason of 
insanity, to the Attorney General. The amendment was accepted 
without objection.
    Senator Coburn offered an amendment to Title II clarifying 
that all NICS reports be available to U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, and the amendment was accepted without 
objection.
    Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to Title III mandating 
a Government Accountability Office study of qualified active 
and retired law enforcement officers carrying concealed 
weapons, and the amendment was accepted.
    Finally, Senator Kyl offered an amendment to attach the 
Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007 (S. 735) to the 
original bill, and the amendment was accepted and added to the 
bill at Title VI.

              III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill


Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents

    This section provides that the legislation may be cited as 
the ``School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 
2007.''

Title I, Sec. 101. Short title

    This section provides that the legislation may be cited as 
the ``School Safety Enhancements Act.''

   Subtitle A--Elementary and Secondary Education Safety Enhancements


Sec. 111. Grant program for school security

    This section expands the ``Secure Our Schools'' grant 
program for elementary and secondary schools to add to the list 
of acceptable uses of surveillance equipment, hotlines and tip 
lines, and capital improvements. It also creates an interagency 
task force to develop advisory guidelines for schools, and 
mandates collaboration between school professionals and law 
enforcement in making grant applications. Finally, this section 
increases the amount of funding allowed for school safety 
grants to $50 million for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

Sec. 112. Applications

    This section provides that grant applications must be 
accompanied by a report prepared in consultation with senior 
school professionals and senior law enforcement officers 
demonstrating that the proposed use of grant funds will be 
effective, consistent with the program's objectives, and 
individualized to the needs of each school district.

Sec. 113. Authorization of appropriations

    This section strikes the existing authorization of 
$30,000,000 and replaces it with an increased authorization of 
$50,000,000 for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

              Subtitle B--Campus Public Safety Enhancement


Sec. 121. National Center for Campus Public Safety

    This section authorizes the Attorney General, through the 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, to award grants 
for the creation of a National Center for Campus Public Safety. 
The section sets forth the objectives for the National Center, 
provides for interagency collaboration on the National Center's 
creation, and funds the National Center at $2.75 million for 
fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

Sec. 122. Grants for campus law enforcement

    This section authorizes the Attorney General, through the 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, to make grants 
to institutions of higher education or consortia of such 
institutions for the purpose of improving security at those 
institutions. The section provides for the federal share to be 
set at 50% of costs, and includes a waiver provision for grant 
applicants with financial need. The section sets forth the 
application criteria, specifies the permissible uses of funds, 
provides for an annual report from the Attorney General to 
Congress on activities under the program, and provides for 
$50,000,000 in funding for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

Title II, Sec. 201. Short title

    This section provides that the legislation may be cited as 
the ``NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.''

Sec. 202. Findings

    This section summarizes the Congressional findings 
supporting the need for this legislation. In particular, 
Congress finds that more than 20,000,000 criminal records are 
not currently accessible by the NICS and, even though the NICS 
is automated, there can be delays where records are not 
electronically available to the FBI or other authorities. 
Congress also finds that the NICS system can be improved by 
creating more automated access to disqualifying records.

Sec. 203. Definitions

    This section defines the terms consistent with their 
meanings in Sections 921 and 922 of Title 18, as well as the 
current federal regulations implementing those sections.

                   Subtitle A--Transmittal of Records


Sec. 211. Enhancement of requirement that Federal departments and 
        agencies provide relevant information to the National Instant 
        Criminal Background Check System

    Sec. 211(a). In General. This sub-section amends the Brady 
Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 note) to 
require federal agencies, at the request of the Attorney 
General, to provide disqualifying information under Sections 
922(g) and 922(n) of Title 18, in electronic form. This section 
also requires federal agencies to provide disqualifying 
information, and any updates, corrections, modifications, or 
removals of such information no less than quarterly each year. 
Under this section, the Attorney General must also provide an 
annual report to Congress describing compliance with these 
provisions.
    Sec. 211(b). Provision and Maintenance of NICS. This sub-
section requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security to provide disqualifying information, as well as any 
changes in a person's legal status, quarterly each year to the 
Attorney General. This section also directs the Attorney 
General to ensure that the NICS system is maintained accurately 
and confidentially, consistent with all applicable laws, to 
provide for the timely removal and destruction of obsolete or 
erroneous information in the NICS system, and to work with 
States to improve their computer systems for prompt 
notification of disqualifying information.
    Sec. 211(c). Standard for Adjudications, Commitments and 
Determinations Related to Mental Health. This sub-section 
restricts federal departments and agencies from reporting any 
disqualifying mental health records if any of the following 
occur: the disqualifying adjudication, determination, 
orcommitment has been set aside or expunged or the person has been 
fully released from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or 
monitoring; the person has been found by a court, commission, or other 
lawful authority to no longer suffer from the disqualifying mental 
health condition; the disqualifying adjudication, determination, or 
commitment does not contain a finding that the person is a danger to 
himself or others, or that the person lacks the mental capacity to 
manage his own affairs, except that neither this provision, nor any 
other provision of law, shall prevent the reporting of adjudications or 
determinations of mental insanity or mental incompetence to stand trial 
in a criminal or military court proceeding. This section also requires 
federal departments and agencies to establish relief from disability 
programs for persons disqualified under Sections 922(d)(4) and 
922(g)(4). Such programs shall provide relief and judicial review 
consistent with Section 925(c) of Title 18. Where a disqualifying 
mental health record does not meet the requirements of this law, it is 
deemed not to exist for purposes of Section 922(d)(4) and 922(g)(4).
    Sec. 211(d). Information Excluded From NICS Records. This 
sub-section directs that no federal department or agency may 
provide a disqualifying mental health record to NICS unless 
that record contains an adjudication, determination, or 
commitment that includes a finding that the person is a danger 
to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental 
capacity to manage his own affairs. This is consistent with the 
current regulations interpreting Section 922(g)(4) of Title 18 
found at 27 C.F.R. Sec. 478.11. This provision shall apply 
retroactively.

Sec. 212. Requirements to obtain waiver

    Sec. 212(a). In General. This sub-section provides that 
States shall be eligible for a waiver of the 10 percent 
matching requirement for grants under the National Criminal 
Identification Technology Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 14601) if 
a State provides 90 percent of the information described in 
Section 212(c).
    Sec. 212(b). State Estimates. In order to assist the 
Attorney General in determining whether to grant waivers or 
impose penalties under this law, this sub-section requires 
States to provide the Attorney General with a reasonable 
estimate of the number of disqualifying records applicable to 
each State within 180 days of the passage of this law. If a 
State fails to provide such an estimate, they cannot receive 
funds under Section 213. In making this estimate, records are 
defined consistent with the disqualifying factors of Section 
922(g)(1-4) and 922(g)(8-9). For purposes of evaluating 
compliance under this law, the Attorney General shall only 
assess the total percentage of records within the 20 prior 
years, though States shall nonetheless endeavor to report 
disqualifying records regardless of time limit.
    Sec. 212(c). Eligibility of State Records for Submission to 
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. To be 
eligible for the waiver in Section 212(a), this sub-section 
requires States to make disqualifying records electronically 
available to the Attorney General and to update, correct, 
modify, or remove records from NICS that are no longer 
disqualifying. To remain eligible for the waiver, States must 
certify that they continue to have 90 percent compliance in 
reporting disqualifying records to NICS. The States shall also 
make available to the Attorney General records relevant to 
determinations that a person has been convicted of a 
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, including the specific 
law violated. In the case of individuals disqualified for 
mental health reasons, only the names and identifying 
information of those individuals shall be made available.
    Sec. 212(d). Privacy Protections. For any disqualifying 
information submitted to the NICS system, this sub-section 
directs the Attorney General to work with States, local law 
enforcement, and the mental health community to establish 
regulations and protocols to protect the privacy of information 
provided to NICS.
    Sec. 212(e). Attorney General Report. This sub-section 
directs the Attorney General to submit a report to the House 
and Senate Judiciary Committees on the progress of the States 
in automating the disqualifying records reported to NICS.

Sec. 213. Implementation assistance to States

    This section provides that the Attorney General shall make 
grants to States and Indian tribal governments, in conjunction 
with local government and its courts, to establish and upgrade 
information and identification technologies reported into NICS. 
The grants may only be used to assist States in creating 
electronic systems to provide accurate and timely information 
to the NICS system and to collect and analyze data for 
assessing compliance. States must have a relief from 
disabilities program consistent with Section 215 to receive 
grants, and shall agree to the conditions of the grants. The 
bill authorizes $400 million for each of the fiscal years 2009 
through 2013 to carry out this section, and the Attorney 
General shall endeavor to provide one half of the funds to 
States providing more than 50 percent of the records required 
by Section 212 and 213 in the first three years of funding, and 
one half of the authorized funding to States providing more 
than 70 percent of the same records in the last two years of 
funding. Ultimately, the Attorney General shall have discretion 
to make adjustments to the funding to distribute the grants as 
necessary to maximize incentives for State compliance. The FBI 
shall not charge a user fee for background checks under NICS.

Sec. 214. Penalties for noncompliance

    This section requires the Attorney General to file annual 
reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the 
progress of States in automating disqualifying records reported 
to NICS. For a two year period beginning three years after this 
law is enacted, the Attorney General has the discretion to 
withhold not more than 3 percent of the grant funds States 
receive pursuant to Section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3755) if a State 
provides less than 50 percent of the disqualifying records 
under Sections 212 and 213. For the subsequent five year 
period, the Attorney General may withhold not more than 4 
percent of the same funds if a State provides less than 70 
percent of the disqualifying records under Section 212 and 213. 
At the conclusion of that period, the Attorney General shall 
withhold not more than 5 percent of the same funds if a State 
provides less than 90 percent of the disqualifying records 
under Sections 212 and 213. The Attorney General may waive 
these penalties if a State provides substantial evidence that a 
State is making reasonable efforts to comply with the 
requirements of Sections 212 and 213, including any inability 
to comply due to court order or other legal restriction. In 
calculating compliance, the Attorney General shall determine 
the methodology and shall base compliance on the total number 
of records reported by States from all subcategories of 
disqualifying information.

Sec. 215. Relief from disabilities program required as condition for 
        participation in the grant programs

    This section describes the State relief from disabilities 
program for persons disqualified for mental health reasons. The 
relief programs need to allow such persons to apply for relief 
under State law, and provide that a State court, board, 
commission, or other lawful authority only grant relief 
pursuant to State law, in accordance with due process, and if 
the circumstances regarding the disabilityand the person's 
record and reputation are such that the person will not be likely to 
act in a manner dangerous to public safety and granting relief would 
not be contrary to the public interest. The relief from disabilities 
program must also permit de novo judicial appeal of any denial of 
relief to a State court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Sec. 216. Illegal immigrant gun purchase notification

    This section provides that NICS records relevant to whether 
a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm as an illegal 
alien will be made available to the U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement and the Attorney General shall promulgate 
guidelines as to what records shall be provided.

Subtitle B--Focusing Federal Assistance on the Improvement of Relevant 
                                Records


Sec. 221. Continuing evaluations

    This section directs the Director of the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics to study and evaluate the operations of the NICS 
system, including the State estimates under Section 212(b), and 
report to Congress annually. The Director shall also make a 
report of best practices in collecting, maintaining, 
automating, and transmitting records into the NICS system and 
provide it to the States and Congress annually.

   Subtitle C--Grants to State Court Systems for the Improvement in 
           Automation and Transmittal of Disposition Records


Sec. 231. disposition records automation and transmittal improvement 
        grants

    This section provides for the Attorney General to award 
grants to State court systems to improve their automation and 
transmittal of criminal histories and other disqualifying 
records. These funds may only be used to assess the court 
systems and implement the policies, systems, and procedures for 
the automation and transmittal of disqualifying records. States 
must have a relief from disabilities program pursuant to 
Section 215. This section authorizes $125 million for each of 
the fiscal years 2008 through 2010 to carry out these purposes.

                         Subtitle D--GAO Audit


Sec. 241. GAO audit

    The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
an audit of the funds expended under this law and shall submit 
this report to Congress.

Title III, Sec. 301. Short title

    This section provides that this title may be cited as the 
``Equity in Law Enforcement Act''.

Sec. 302. Line-of-duty death and disability benefits

    This section amends Section 1204(8) of part L of the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 to make sworn 
law enforcement officers serving at private institutions of 
higher education, as well as sworn officers employed by rail 
carriers eligible for death and disability benefits provided 
under that law.

Sec. 303. Law enforcement armor vests

    This section amends Section 2501 of part Y of the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to make sworn law 
enforcement officers serving at private institutions of higher 
education, as well as sworn officers employed by rail carriers 
eligible for grants to provide such officers with armor vests.

Sec. 304. Byrne grants

    This section amends Section 501(b)(2) of part E of title I 
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
make sworn law enforcement officers serving at private 
institutions of higher education, as well as sworn officers 
employed by rail carriers eligible for Byrne Grants.

Title IV, Sec. 401. Short title

    This section provides that this title may be cited as the 
``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007.''

Sec. 402. Amendments to law enforcement officers safety provisions of 
        title 18

    This section adds a subsection to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B 
making explicit that Amtrak police and executive branch law 
enforcement officers are included under the statute regulating 
concealed weapons carrying by active duty officers.

Sec. 403.

    This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C to reduce to 10 
years, from 15 years, the duration of service as a law 
enforcement officer required in order to qualify to carry a 
concealed weapon once retired. Section 2(b)(1)(B) eliminates 
the requirement that a qualified retired law enforcement 
officer have a non-forfeitable right to retirement benefits and 
expands the list of organizations qualified to certify the 
retired officer's firearms training. Section 2(b)(1)(C) 
renumbers certain paragraphs.
    This section also clarifies language describing the 
identification qualified retired officers are required to 
carry. Section 2(b)(2)(B) allows instructors who conduct 
firearms qualification tests on active duty officers to also 
certify retired officers.
    Finally, this section adds a subsection making explicit 
that Amtrak police and executive branch law enforcement 
officers are included under the statute regulating concealed 
weapons carrying by retired officers.

Title V, Sec. 501. Short title

    This section provides that this title may be cited as the 
``Prevention Resources for Eliminating Criminal Activity Using 
Tailored Interventions in Our Neighborhoods (PRECAUTION) Act of 
2007.''

Sec. 502. Purposes

    This section sets forth the legislative purposes, which 
include a commitment on the part of the Federal Government to 
provide leadership on successful crime prevention and 
intervention strategies.

Sec. 503. Definitions

    This section defines key terms in the bill.

Sec. 504. National Commission on Public Safety Through Crime Prevention

    The Commission will be made up of nine members, selected on 
a bipartisan basis by the President and members of both parties 
in Congress. Commissioners will include law enforcement 
practitioners and social scientists. Representatives of 
pertinent DOJ offices will also serve in an ex officio basis. 
The Commission will examine the effectiveness of prevention and 
intervention strategies in school settings, family and 
community settings, and law enforcement settings. The 
Commission must issue an initial report that relays the results 
of its examination and identifies for State and local law 
enforcement: (1) a discrete set of top-tier prevention and 
intervention strategies that are supported by scientifically 
rigorous evidence; and (2) key steps for implementing these 
top-tier strategies. Based upon their comprehensive study, the 
Commission will make recommendations to the National Institute 
of Justice (NIJ) about the types of strategies it would prefer 
to see funded under the grants provided for inSection 505. The 
Commission will issue a second report, detailing the strategies 
selected by the NIJ for grants under Section 505, the observations of 
the Commission on the implementation of these strategies, and the 
results of the three-year studies evaluating the effectiveness of the 
strategies. Finally, travel costs are covered for Commissioners (who 
are not otherwise compensated for service), full-time staff may be 
hired (with compensation for the executive director fixed to the 
General Schedule pay rates), and federal employees may be assigned as 
details to the Commission. A total of $5 million is authorized for the 
five years of the Commission's existence.

Sec. 505. Innovative crime prevention and intervention strategy grants

    The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is authorized to 
make grants for pilot projects in crime intervention and 
prevention. Grants are to be made for a three-year period. $18 
million is authorized for grants, with individual grants not to 
exceed $2 million dollars. Grants must include a set-aside for 
implementation of a NIJ-approved and scientifically rigorous 
study of the effectiveness of the program. Grants must be 
evenly distributed among school settings, family and community 
settings, and law enforcement settings. The NIJ Director is to 
hire or assign a full-time employee to oversee the grants under 
Section 505, to monitor implementation of the approved study 
design, and to act as the liaison between the grant recipient 
and the Commission. Grant recipients are required to cooperate 
with the Commission's request for information regarding the 
progress of implementation and the study of effectiveness. The 
bill authorizes $150,000 per year to cover the cost of 
employment for this dedicated staff person.

Title VI, Sec. 601

    This section provides that the legislation may be cited as 
the ``Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007.''

Sec. 602. Improvements to the terrorist hoax statute

    This section expands 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1038, the terrorist 
hoax statute, so that it punishes hoaxes about any terrorist 
offense listed in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2332b(g)(5)(B). In addition, 
the bill increases the maximum penalties for hoaxes about the 
death or injury of a U.S. soldier during wartime. The bill also 
expands existing civil liability provisions to allow first 
responders and other emergency personnel to seek reimbursement 
from a party who perpetrates a hoax and becomes aware that 
first responders believe that a terrorist offense is taking 
place, but fails to inform authorities that no such event has 
occurred. Finally, the bill clarifies that threatening 
communications are punishable under federal law even if they 
are directed at an organization rather than a natural person.

             IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    The cost estimate provided by the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 was not available for inclusion in this report. The 
estimate will be printed in either a supplemental report or the 
Congressional Record when it is available.

                    V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation

    In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory 
impact will result from the enactment of S. __, the School 
Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007.

                             VI. Conclusion

    Passage of the School Safety and Law Enforcement 
Improvement Act, S. __, will enlist the States as partners in 
the dissemination of critical information about the purchases 
of firearms, will distribute federal dollars to improve the 
safety and security of our schools from kindergarten through 
the college and university level, will provide equitable 
benefits to campus safety officers protecting private colleges 
and universities, and will effectively evaluate and implement 
crime prevention programs in school settings and elsewhere. The 
bill also makes improvements to two existing laws by ensuring 
that law enforcement officers may answer the call of duty 
wherever they may be by clarifying the scope of concealed carry 
laws, and by strengthening the federal terrorist hoax statute 
to punish disruptive and costly ``false alarms'' that can 
create turmoil in schools and on college campuses.
    In reporting the bill, the Senate Judiciary Committee has 
demonstrated its desire to address and prevent violence in our 
nation's schools, improve the resources available to law 
enforcement, and enact measures to protect our nation's most 
valuable resource: its young people.

                        VII. Supplemental Views

                              ----------                              


              OPPOSING VIEWS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY

    I oppose Title IV of the School Safety and Law Enforcement 
Improvements Act, which amends the Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Act of 2004.
    Title IV is a serious step in the wrong direction and will 
undermine the safety of our communities and our police officers 
by further overriding state and local gun-safety laws. It will 
also weaken the ability of police departments to enforce rules 
and policies on when and how their own officers can carry 
firearms. Because of the substantial danger of the LEOSA 
Amendment to police officers and communities, it is vigorously 
opposed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police 
and the National Sheriffs' Association.

 A. THE LEOSA AMENDMENT WILL FURTHER WEAKEN THE ABILITY OF STATES AND 
      LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE FIREARMS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES

    Every year, thousands of our fellow citizens are killed by 
guns. The devastating tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech 
last April shocked the nation. The country was united in 
extending our deepest condolences and prayers to the students, 
faculty, and families affected by the brutal crime. Many of the 
victims were young men and women in the prime of their lives. 
They were sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and 
neighbors. Yet, as part of this measure, the Committee has 
approved this ill-conceived measure to allow even more people 
to carry concealed weapons in our communities. The overall rate 
of firearm deaths among children is nearly twelve times higher 
in the United States than in other industrial countries. These 
deaths are senseless, and we all know that the vast majority of 
them could be prevented by sensible gun laws. It is shameful 
that we are not doing more in Congress to achieve gun safety 
and reduce gun violence. The ``gun show loophole,'' which 
allows firearms to be purchased illegally at gun shows, should 
have been closed long ago, and there are many other steps that 
Congress should take to protect citizens from the scourge of 
gun violence.
    At the very least, Congress should refrain from interfering 
with gun-safety laws enacted by states and local governments. 
Before LEOSA was enacted in 2004, each state had the authority 
to decide what kind of concealed-carry law, if any, best fit 
the needs of its communities. But the 2004 Act took away the 
ability of state and local police departments to enforce rules 
and policies on when and how their own officers can carry 
weapons. If we are going to amend the Act, we should give back 
the power of local police to run their own departments, not 
further undermine their ability to protect their citizens.
    No evidence supported the need for the law when it was 
first enacted. States and local governments adequately met the 
interests and needs of their active duty and retired law 
enforcement officers. Consider, for example, New Jersey law. In 
1995, retired police Chief John Deventer was shot and killed 
while heroically trying to stop a robbery. His death prompted 
New Jersey to enact a law allowing retired officers to carry 
handguns under a number of conditions. In drafting this law, 
the New Jersey legislature made a deliberate effort to balance 
the safety of police officers with the safety of the public, by 
including a number of important safeguards not contained in 
LEOSA. For example:
     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,

    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 (twosworn 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, church-goers, and other members of their 
communities. Congress should bolster, not undermine, the 
efforts of states and local governments to protect their 
citizens from gun violence.
    LEOSA has also jeopardized most ``safe harbor'' laws at the 
state level by essentially overriding laws that categorically 
prohibit guns in churches and other houses of worship, since 
only laws that permit private entities to post signs 
prohibiting concealed firearms on their property remain in 
force. In most states, churches are not currently required to 
post signs in order to have a gun-free zone.
    LEOSA has even preempted laws that prohibit concealed 
weapons in places where alcohol is served. Surely, it is 
reasonable for a state to prohibit individuals from bringing 
guns into bars, to prevent the extreme danger that results when 
liquor and firearms come together. Yet Congress allowed this 
legislation to go forward and now this measure will make it 
even easier for a retired officer to get a gun--regardless of 
state and local laws. Let's not compound that mistake by 
further damaging firearms laws.

B. LEOSA WILL UNDERMINE THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND THE SAFETY OF 
                            POLICE OFFICERS

    Title IV will also allow less qualified retired officers to 
carry concealed weapons. The provision changes the service 
requirement from a retired officer who was regularly employed 
for an aggregate of fifteen years or more to a retired officer 
who served for ten years. The measure also strikes the 
provision that requires a retired officer to have obtained a 
non-forfeitable right to benefits under the agency's retirement 
plan. These changes erode the few safeguards in the original 
Act. Greater numbers of less qualified officers will now be 
able to legally carry concealed weapons, making local 
communities even more dangerous. That is why I introduced an 
amendment at the August 2nd Judiciary Committee meeting to 
emphasize that nothing in LEOSA should be construed to limit or 
supersede state or local laws that prohibit or restrict the 
possession of a concealed firearm by an officer who has retired 
under threat of disciplinary action, who has been dismissed for 
emotional problems, who leaves the force prior to a 
disciplinary or competency hearing, or who, after retiring, 
becomes unfit to carry a concealed weapon. Unfortunately, the 
Committee rejected this amendment by a vote of 9 to 10.
    Make no mistake. There are numerous cases in which both 
active duty and retired officers have used firearms with deadly 
consequences. Recently, a Prince George's County police officer 
and former Homeland Security official was indicted in August 
2007 on charges of murder and attempted murder. The officer 
fired on two unarmed delivery men last January, killing one and 
seriously wounding the other. The same officer was charged in a 
second gun-related case after he pulled a gun on a real estate 
appraiser who accidentally knocked on his door. In another 
disturbing case, a retired New York Police Department police 
officer was charged with shooting and killing his ex-wife. 
There's no question that such incidents will increase if this 
legislation becomes law, allowing less qualified officers who 
do not receive ongoing training to carry concealed weapons. As 
the National Sheriff's Association pointed out in a letter of 
February 28, 2007, ``* * * carrying a firearm is a privilege 
that is bestowed upon those retired law enforcement officers 
that have dedicated their lives to protect the safety of our 
citizens, and when considering the expansion of such a 
privilege we must not act hastily.''
    There is not even a requirement in the LEOSA Amendment that 
a retiree demonstrate a special need for a firearm. LEOSA 
provides that an officer must have technically left law 
enforcement in ``good standing,'' but it is clear that sub-par 
government employees are often routinely released from their 
positions without a formal finding of misconduct. The bill does 
not draw a distinction between officers who served ably and 
those who did not. Officers who retire in ``good standing'' 
while under investigation for domestic violence, racial 
profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse could still 
qualify for broad concealed-carry authority for the remainder 
of their lives. I introduced an amendment at the August 2nd 
Judiciary Committee meeting to require stricter standards, so 
that only truly competent persons could qualify to carry 
concealed firearms. The Committee rejected the amendment by a 
vote of 6 to 13.
    Congress should also support emerging technologies, such as 
microstamping, which can allow law enforcement to make use of 
evidence left at crime scenes. Microstamping uses lasers to 
make precise, microscopic engravings on the firing pin and 
chamber of a weapon, which are transferred onto the cartridge 
casing when the weapon is fired. The process transfers the 
gun's make, model and serial number to the casing, which can 
yield important information to law enforcement officers 
investigating crimes. This technology would substantially 
improve law enforcement's ability to act quickly to identify 
and link shell casings found at a crime scene to the individual 
handgun from which it was fired. In fact, microstamping may 
have enabled investigators of the Virginia Tech shooting to 
identify the perpetrator more quickly, by analyzing 
microstamped markings on the casings left behind at the first 
crime scene. At the August 2nd Committee Meeting, I offered an 
amendment to require certain firearms manufactured, imported or 
sold by Federal firearms licensees to be capable of 
microstamping ammunition. The Committee failed to approve the 
amendment by a vote of 8 to 11.

                             C. CONCLUSION

    Each state and local government should be allowed to make 
its own judgment as to when citizens and out-of-state visitors 
may carry concealed weapons--and whether active or retired law 
enforcement officers should be included in or exempted from any 
prohibition. In the words of the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, it is ``essential that state and local 
governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry 
laws that best fit the needs of their communities.''
    Allowing greater numbers of less qualified off-duty or 
retired officers with concealed weapons to go into other 
jurisdictions will only make conditions more dangerous for 
police officers and civilians. As the Executive Director of the 
IACP explained in a letter of March 7, 2007:

          The ability of law enforcement agencies to establish, 
        implement, and maintain firearms standards and training 
        requirements varies greatly from state to state and 
        from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions 
        have developed rigorous training programs and have 
        established strict standards of accountability and 
        stringent firearms policies while other jurisdictions 
        have not. This legislation would undercut the ability 
        of state and local law enforcement agencies to 
        determine what standards best meet the needs of the 
        departments and the communities they serve.

    LEOSA will unnecessarily damage the efforts of states and 
local governments to protect their citizens from gun violence. 
It will also expose state and local governments to unnecessary 
liability and nullify the ability of police chiefs to maintain 
discipline and control within their own departments. I regret 
that the Committee did not adopt the amendments I offered to 
correct the bill's most serious flaws. The nation will be 
better served if Congress puts aside this misguided effort to 
further weaken state and local control over concealed carry 
laws, and turns its attention instead to measures we know will 
reduce crime and improve the safety of police officers and all 
Americans.

                                                       Ted Kennedy.

      VIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
S. __, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                           UNITED STATES CODE

                TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 42--EXTORTION AND CREDIT TRANSACTIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 877. MAILING THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRY.

    Whoever knowingly deposits in any post office or authorized 
depository for mail matter of any foreign country any 
communication addressed to any person within the United States, 
for the purpose of having such communication delivered by the 
post office establishment of such foreign country to the Postal 
Service and by it delivered to such addressee in the United 
States, and as a result thereof such communication is delivered 
by the post office establishment of such foreign country to the 
Postal Service and by it delivered to the address to which it 
is directed in the United States, and containing any demand or 
request for ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped 
person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 
than twenty years, or both.
    Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or 
other thing of value, so deposits as aforesaid, any 
communication for the purpose aforesaid, containing any threat 
to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of the 
addressee or of another, shall be fined under this title or 
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
    Whoever knowingly so deposits as aforesaid, any 
communication, for the purpose aforesaid, containing any threat 
to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of the 
addressee or of another, shall be fined under this title or 
imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
    Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or 
other thing of value, knowingly so deposits as aforesaid, any 
communication, for the purpose aforesaid, containing any threat 
to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of 
another, or the reputation of a deceased person, or any threat 
to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall 
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two 
years, or both.
    For purposes of this section, the term ``addressed to any 
person'' includes an individual, a corporation or other legal 
person, and a government or agency or component thereof.

CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 922. NOTE.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (e) Administrative Provisions
          (1) Authority to obtain official information. 
        [Notwithstanding]
                  (A) In general._Notwithstanding any other 
                law, the Attorney General may secure directly 
                from any department or agency of the United 
                States such information on persons for whom 
                receipt of a firearm would violate subsection 
                (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United 
                States Code [subsec. (g) or (n) of this 
                section], or State law, as is necessary to 
                enable the system to operate in accordance with 
                this section. [On request]
                  (B) Request of attorney general._On request 
                the Attorney General, the head of such 
                department or agency shall [furnish such 
                information] furnish electronic versions of the 
                information described under subparagraph (A) to 
                the system.
                  (C) Quarterly submission to attorney 
                general.--If a department or agency under 
                subparagraph (A) has any record of any person 
                demonstrating that the person falls within one 
                of the categories described in subsection (g) 
                or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United 
                States Code, the head of such department or 
                agency shall, not less frequently than 
                quarterly, provide the pertinent information 
                contained in such record to the Attorney 
                General.
                  (D) Information updates.--The agency, on 
                being made aware that the basis under which a 
                record was made available under subparagraph 
                (A) does not apply, or no longer applies, 
                shall--
                          (i) update, correct, modify, or 
                        remove the record from any database 
                        that the agency maintains and makes 
                        available to the Attorney General, in 
                        accordance with the rules pertaining to 
                        that database; or
                          (ii) notify the Attorney General that 
                        such basis no longer applies so that 
                        the National Instant Criminal 
                        Background Check System is kept up to 
                        date.
                  (E) Annual report.--The Attorney General 
                shall submit an annual report to Congress that 
                describes the compliance of each department or 
                agency with the provisions of this paragraph.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 926B. CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS BY QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                    OFFICERS.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (f) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer 
of the Amtrak Police Department or a law enforcement or police 
officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government 
qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is 
authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, 
detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the 
incarceration for, any violation of the law, and has statutory 
powers of arrest

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 926C. CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS BY QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW 
                    ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (c) As used in this section, the term ``qualified retired 
law enforcement officer'' means an individual who--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3)(A) before such retirement, [was regularly 
        employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate 
        of 15 years or more] served as a law enforcement 
        officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or
          (B) retired from service with such agency, after 
        completing any applicable probationary period of such 
        service, due to a service-connected disability, as 
        determined by such agency;
          (4) [has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the 
        retirement plan of the agency] during the most recent 
        12-month period, has met, at the expense of the 
        individual, the standards for qualification in firearms 
        training for active law enforcement officers as set by 
        the former agency, the State in which the officer 
        resides or a law enforcement agency within the State in 
        which the officer resides;
          [(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, 
        at the expense of the individual, the State's standards 
        for training and qualification for active law 
        enforcement officers to carry firearms;]
          [(6)] (5) is not under the influence of alcohol or 
        another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or 
        substance; and
          [(7)] (6) is not prohibited by Federal law from 
        receiving a firearm.
    (d) The identification required by this subsection is--
          (1) a photographic identification issued by the 
        agency from which the individual retired from service 
        as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the 
        individual has, not less recently than one year before 
        the date the individual is carrying the concealed 
        firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency 
        [to meet the standards established by the agency for 
        training and qualification for active law enforcement 
        officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the 
        concealed firearm; or] to meet the active duty 
        standards for qualification in firearms training as 
        established by the agency to carry a firearm of the 
        same type as the concealed firearm or
          (2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the 
        agency from which the individual retired from service 
        as a law enforcement officer; and
          (B) a certification issued by the State in which the 
        individual resides that indicates that the individual 
        has, not less recently than one year before the date 
        the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been 
        tested or [otherwise found by the State to meet the 
        standards established by the State for training and 
        qualification for active law enforcement officers to 
        carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed 
        firearm.] Otherwise found by the State or a certified 
        firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a 
        firearms qualification test for active duty officers 
        within that State to have met--
                  (i) the active duty standards for 
                qualification in firearms training as 
                established by the State to carry a firearm of 
                the same type as the concealed firearm; or
                  (ii) if the State has not established such 
                standards, standards set by any law enforcement 
                agency within that State to carry a firearm of 
                the same type as the concealed firearm.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) In this section, the term `service with a public agency 
as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a law 
enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or as a law 
enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the 
Federal Government.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 1038. FALSE INFORMATION AND HOAXES.

    (a) Criminal Violation.--
          (1) In general.--Whoever engages in any conduct with 
        intent to convey false or misleading information under 
        circumstances where such information may reasonably be 
        believed and where such information indicates that an 
        activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that 
        would constitute a violation of chapter 2, 10, 11B, 39, 
        40, 44, 111, or 113B of this title, section 236 of the 
        Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), or section 
        46502, the second sentence of section 46504, section 
        46505(b)(3) or (c), section 46506 if homicide or 
        attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) of 
        title 49, or any other offense listed under section 
        2332b(g)(5)(B) of this title, shall--
                  (A) be fined under this title or imprisoned 
                not more than 5 years, or both;
                  (B) if serious bodily injury results, be 
                fined under this title or imprisoned not more 
                than 20 years, or both; and
                  (C) if death results, be fined under this 
                title or imprisoned for any number of years up 
                to life, or both.
          (2) Armed forces.--Any person who makes a false 
        statement, with intent to convey false or misleading 
        information, about the death, injury, capture, or 
        disappearance of a member of the Armed Forces of the 
        United States during a war or armed conflict in which 
        the United States is engaged--
                  (A) shall be fined under this title, 
                imprisoned not more than [5 years] 10 years, or 
                both;
                  (B) if serious bodily injury results, shall 
                be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
                than [20 years] 25 years, or both; and
                  (C) if death results, shall be fined under 
                this title, imprisoned for any number of years 
                or for life, or both.
    (b) Civil Action.--Whoever engages in any conduct with 
intent to convey false or misleading information under 
circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed 
and where such information indicates that an activity has 
taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an 
offense listed under subsection (a)(1) is liable in a civil 
action to any party incurring expenses incident to any 
emergency or investigative response to that conduct, for those 
expenses.
          (2) Effect of conduct.--
                  (A) In general.--A person described in 
                subparagraph (B) is liable in a civil action to 
                any party described in subparagraph (B)(ii) for 
                any expenses that are incurred by that party--
                          (i) incident to any emergency or 
                        investigative response to any conduct 
                        described in subparagraph (B)(i); and
                          (ii) after the person that engaged in 
                        that conduct should have informed the 
                        party of the actual nature of the 
                        activity.
                  (B) Applicability.--A person described in 
                this subparagraph is any person that--
                          (i) engages in any conduct that has 
                        the effect of conveying false or 
                        misleading information under 
                        circumstances where such information 
                        may reasonably be believed to indicate 
                        that an activity is taking place that 
                        would constitute an offense listed 
                        under subsection (a)(1);
                          (ii) receives actual notice that 
                        another party is taking emergency or 
                        investigative action because that party 
                        believes that an activity has taken, is 
                        taking, or will take place that would 
                        constitute an offense listed under 
                        subsection (a)(1); and
                          (iii) after receiving such notice, 
                        fails to promptly and reasonably inform 
                        1 or more parties described in clause 
                        (ii) of the actual nature of the 
                        activity.
    (c) Reimbursement.--
          (1) In general.--The court, in imposing a sentence on 
        a defendant who has been convicted of an offense under 
        subsection (a), shall order the defendant to reimburse 
        any state or local government, or private not-for-
        profit organization that provides fire or rescue 
        service incurring expenses incident to any emergency or 
        investigative response to that conduct, for those 
        expenses.
          (2) Liability.--A person ordered to make 
        reimbursement under this subsection shall be jointly 
        and severally liable for such expenses with each other 
        person, if any, who is ordered to make reimbursement 
        under this subsection for the same expenses.
          (3) Civil judgment.--An order of reimbursement under 
        this subsection shall, for the purposes of enforcement, 
        be treated as a civil judgment.
    (d) Activities of Law Enforcement.--This section does not 
prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or 
intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United 
States, a State, or political subdivision of a State, or of an 
intelligence agency of the United States.

OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968 (P.L. 90-351)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


          PART E--BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAMS


Subpart 1--Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 501. DESCRIPTION.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (b) Contracts and Subawards.--A State or unit of local 
government may, in using a grant under this subpart for 
purposes authorized by subsection (a), use all or a portion of 
that grant to contract with or make one or more subawards to 
one or more--
          (1) neighborhood or community-based organizations 
        that are private and nonprofit; or
          (2) units of local government, private institutions 
        of higher education, and rail carriers.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             PART L--PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH BENEFITS


Subpart 1--Death Benefits

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    Sec. 1204. As used in this part--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (9) ``public safety officer'' means--
                  (A) an individual serving a public agency in 
                an official capacity, with or without 
                compensation, as a law enforcement officer, as 
                a firefighter, as a chaplain, or as a member of 
                a rescue squad or ambulance crew;
                  (B) an employee of the Federal Emergency 
                Management Agency who is performing official 
                duties of the Agency in an area, if those 
                official duties--
                          (i) are related to a major disaster 
                        or emergency that has been, or is 
                        later, declared to exist with respect 
                        to the area under the Robert T. 
                        Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                        Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et 
                        seq.); and
                          (ii) are determined by the Director 
                        of the Federal Emergency Management 
                        Agency to be hazardous duties; [or]
                  (C) an employee of a State, local, or tribal 
                emergency management or civil defense agency 
                who is performing official duties in 
                cooperation with the Federal Emergency 
                Management Agency in an area, if those official 
                duties--
                          (i) are related to a major disaster 
                        or emergency that has been, or is 
                        later, declared to exist with respect 
                        to the area under the Robert T. 
                        Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                        Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et 
                        seq.); and
                          (ii) are determined by the head of 
                        the agency to be hazardous duties[.]
                  (D) an individual who is--
                          (i) serving a private institution of 
                        higher education in an official 
                        capacity, with or without compensation, 
                        as a law enforcement officer; and
                          (ii) sworn, licensed, or certified 
                        under the laws of a State for the 
                        purposes of law enforcement (and 
                        trained to meet the training standards 
                        for law enforcement officers 
                        established by the relevant 
                        governmental appointing authority); or
                  (E) a rail police officer who is--
                          (i) employed by a rail carrier; and
                          (ii) sworn, licensed, or certified 
                        under the laws of a State for the 
                        purposes of law enforcement (and 
                        trained to meet the training standards 
                        for law enforcement officers 
                        established by the relevant 
                        governmental appointing authority).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


     PART Y--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR VESTS


SEC. 2501. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

    (a) In General.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance is authorized to make grants to States, units of 
local government, and [Indian tribes] Indian tribes, private 
institutions of higher education, and rail carriers to purchase 
armor vests for use by State, local, and tribal law enforcement 
officers and law enforcement officers serving private 
institutions of higher education and rail carriers who are 
sworn, licensed, or certified under the laws of a State for the 
purposes of law enforcement (and trained to meet the training 
standards for law enforcement officers established by the 
relevant governmental appointing authority.
    (b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section shall 
be--
          (1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local 
        government, or [Indian tribe] Indian tribe, private 
        institution of higher education, or rail carrier; and
          (2) used for the purchase of armor vests for law 
        enforcement officers in the jurisdiction of the 
        grantee.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Maximum Amount.--A qualifying State, unit of local 
government, or [Indian tribe] Indian tribe, private institution 
of higher education, or rail carrier may not receive more than 
5 percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal year 
for grants under this section, except that a State, together 
with the grantees within the State may not receive more than 20 
percent of the total amount appropriated in each fiscal year 
for grants under this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2502. APPLICATIONS.

    (a) In General.--To request a grant under this part, the 
chief executive of a State, unit of local government, or 
[Indian tribe] Indian tribe, private institution of higher 
education, or rail carrier shall submit an application to the 
Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance in such form and 
containing such information as the Director may reasonably 
require.
    (b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
the enactment of this part, the Director of the Bureau of 
Justice Assistance shall promulgate regulations to implement 
this section (including the information that must be included 
and the requirements that the States, units of local 
government, and [Indian tribes] Indian tribes, private 
institutions of higher education, and rail carriers must meet) 
in submitting the applications required under this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2503. DEFINITIONS.

    For purposes of this part--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) the term ``law enforcement officer'' means any 
        officer, agent, or employee of a State, unit of local 
        government, or [Indian tribe] Indian tribe, private 
        institution of higher education, or railcarrier 
authorized by law or by a government agency to engage in or supervise 
the prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of 
criminal law, or authorized by law to supervise sentenced criminal 
offenders.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART AA--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL SAFETY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 2701. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (b) Uses of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section shall 
be distributed directly to the State, unit of local government, 
or Indian tribe, and shall be used to improve security at 
schools and on school grounds in the jurisdiction of the 
grantee through one or more of the following:
          (1) Placement and use of metal detectors surveillance 
        equipment, locks, lighting, and other deterrent 
        measures.
          [(2) Security assessments.]
          (2) Establishment of hotlines or tiplines for the 
        reporting of potentially dangerous students and 
        situations.
          (3) Security training of personnel and students.
          (4) Coordination with local law enforcement.
          (5) Capital improvements to make school facilities 
        more secure.
          [(5)] (6) Any other measure that, in the 
        determination of the Director, may provide a 
        significant improvement in security.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Matching Funds.--
          [(1) The portion of the costs of a program provided 
        by a grant under subsection (a) may not exceed 50 
        percent.]
          (1) The Federal share of the costs of a program 
        provided by a grant under subsection (a) shall be 50 
        percent of the total of such costs. The non-Federal 
        share of such costs shall be 50 percent of such costs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Interagency Task Force.--Not later than 60 days after 
the date of enactment of the School Safety and Law Enforcement 
Improvement Act of 2007, the Director and the Secretary of 
Education, or the designee of the Secretary, shall establish an 
interagency task force to develop and promulgate a set of 
advisory school safety guidelines. The advisory school safety 
guidelines shall be published in the Federal Register by not 
later than June 1, 2008.

SEC. 2702. APPLICATIONS.

    (a) In General.--To request a grant under this part, the 
chief executive of a State, unit of local government, or Indian 
tribe shall submit an application to the Director at such time, 
in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the 
Director may require. Each application shall--
          (1) include a detailed explanation of--
                  (A) the intended uses of funds provided under 
                the grant; and
                  (B) how the activities funded under the grant 
                will meet the purpose of this part; and
          (2) be accompanied by [an assurance that the 
        application was prepared after consultation with 
        individuals not limited to law enforcement officers 
        (such as school violence researchers, child 
        psychologists, social workers, teachers, principals, 
        and other school personnel) to ensure that the 
        improvements to be funded under the grant are] a 
        report, prepared in consultation with senior school 
        professionals and senior law enforcement officers, 
        demonstrating that each proposed use of the grant funds 
        will be--
                  [(A) consistent with a comprehensive approach 
                to preventing school violence; and]
                  (B) [individualized to the needs of each 
                school at which those improvements are to be 
                made.]
                  (A) an effective means for improving the 
                safety of one or more schools;
                  (B) consistent with a comprehensive approach 
                to preventing school violence; and
                  (C) individualized to the needs of each 
                school at which those improvements are to be 
                made.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2705. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
subchapter [$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 
2009] $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


     PART JJ--MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR CAMPUS SAFETY AND SECURITY

SEC. 2998. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR CAMPUS SAFETY AND SECURITY.

    (a) In General.--The Attorney General is authorized to make 
grants, through the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, to institutions of higher education or consortia of 
institutions of higher education to pay the Federal share of 
the costs of providing improved security at those institutions.
    (b) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under 
this part, the Attorney General shall give preferential 
consideration, if feasible, to an application from an 
institution of higher education that--
          (1) has a demonstrated need for improved security;
          (2) has a demonstrated need for financial assistance; 
        and
          (3) has evidenced the ability to make the 
        improvements for which the grant amounts are sought.
    (c) Federal Share, Non-Federal Share.--
          (1) In general.--The Federal share of the costs of 
        the activities under this part shall be 50 percent of 
        the total of such costs. The non-Federal share of such 
        costs shall be 50 percent of such costs.
          (2) Special rule.--Any funds appropriated by Congress 
        for the activities of any agency of an Indian tribal 
        government or the Bureau of Indian Affairs performing 
        law enforcement functions on any Indian lands may be 
        used by the tribal colleges and universities to provide 
        the non-Federal share under this subsection.
          (3) Waiver or alteration.--The Attorney General may 
        provide, in the guidelines implementing this section, 
        for the requirement of paragraph (1) to be waived or 
        altered in the case of a recipient with a financial 
        need for such a waiver or alteration.
    (d) Equitable Distribution.--In awarding grants under this 
part, the Attorney General shall ensure, to the extent 
practicable, an equitable geographic distribution among the 
regions of the United States and among urban, suburban, and 
rural areas.
    (e) Administrative Costs.--The Attorney General may reserve 
not more than 2 percent from amounts appropriated to carry out 
this part for administrative costs.

SEC. 2998-1. APPLICATIONS.

    (a) In General.--To request a grant under this part, the 
institution of higher education or consortium shall submit an 
application to the Attorney General at such time, in such 
manner, and accompanied by such information as the Attorney 
General may require. Each application shall--
          (1) include a detailed explanation of--
                  (A) the intended uses of funds provided under 
                the grant; and
                  (B) how the activities funded under the grant 
                will meet the purpose of this part; and
          (2) be accompanied by a report, signed by the chief 
        executive or designated administrator of each 
        institution of higher education receiving assistance 
        under the grant, demonstrating that each proposed use 
        of the grant funds will be--
                  (A) an effective means for improving the 
                safety of 1 or more institutions of higher 
                education;
                  (B) consistent with a comprehensive approach 
                to preventing campus crime and ensuring campus 
                security; and
                  (C) individualized to the needs of each 
                institution of higher education or consortium 
                at which those improvements are to be made.
    (b) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement 
Act of 2007, the Attorney General shall promulgate guidelines 
to implement this section regarding submitting the applications 
required under this section.

SEC. 2998-2. USE OF FUNDS.

    Grants awarded under this part shall be distributed 
directly to institutions of higher education or consortia and 
shall be used to improve campus security at institutions of 
higher education, whether public or private, in the 
jurisdiction of the grantee through 1 or more of the following:
          (1) Hiring of additional campus public safety and 
        security officers (sworn and nonsworn) as well as 
        additional staff and support staff necessary for 
        emergency management.
          (2) Placement and use of surveillance equipment, 
        locks, lighting, metal detectors, and other deterrent 
        measures.
          (3) Developing and implementing emergency 
        communications systems for campuses in order to contact 
        students using state-of-the-art communications methods.
          (4) Security assessments.
          (5) Security training of personnel and students.
          (6) Coordination with Federal, State, and local law 
        enforcement.
          (7) Testing of emergency response and evacuation 
        procedures.
          (8) Capital improvements to make school facilities 
        more secure.
          (9) Establishment of hotlines or tiplines for the 
        reporting of potentially dangerous students and 
        situations.
          (10) Establishment and operation of an office of 
        campus public safety.
          (11) Computer-aided dispatch and record management 
        systems.
          (12) Any other measure that, in the determination of 
        the Attorney General, may provide a significant 
        improvement in security.

SEC. 2998-3. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

    Not later than November 30 of each year, the Attorney 
General shall submit a report to Congress regarding the 
activities carried out under this part. Each such report shall 
include, for the preceding fiscal year--
          (1) the number of grants funded under this part;
          (2) the amount of funds provided under those grants; 
        and
          (3) the activities for which those funds were used.

SEC. 2998-4. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this part, the term `institution of higher 
education' means an institution of higher education as defined 
in section 101 of the Higher Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1001) and 
includes tribal colleges and universities as defined in 20 
U.S.C. 1059c(b)(3);

SEC. 2998-5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
part $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

                                  
