PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 10, 2001
School Anti-Violence Empowerment Act - Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) for: (1) crisis intervention programs, including school counselors; and (2) school safety programs for students, staff, and school facilities.Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to extend through FY 2006 the authorization of appropriations for certain grant programs for Community Policing and "Cops on the Beat" (COPS program). Eliminates provisions for decreasing Federal matching funds and for terminating grant program authority (thus making the authority permanent).Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to extend the authorization of appropriations for after-school and life skills programs for at-risk youth.Directs the Secretary to: (1) develop a model violence prevention program for LEAs; and (2) establish and maintain a national clearinghouse to provide LEAs with information on alternative violence prevention programs, and technical assistance to establish and operate them.
People & committees
Rep. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ-13] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1812 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1812 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1812 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1812 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.