Jack Brooks: “Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman's effort to provide a comprehensive solution to the problems of private…”

“Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman's effort to provide a comprehensive solution to the problems of private security guards whose qualifications may be suspect, I have a number of concerns which lead me to oppose the amendment. At the outset, the Federal interest in private security guard regulation is not completely clear. This is a particular concern since the amendment details an overly intrusive regulatory scheme on the States. For example, it specifies the number and type of hour of training needed, and stipulates the topics that must be covered in the classroom--for every private security guard in the country. The potential consequences of such a detailed Federal scheme have not been studied by the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction in this area. These include the potential costs that the amendment will require the States to pay, the potentially harmful impact on smaller firms providing private security services and, finally, the effect that increased reliance on private security may have on our public law enforcement responsibilities--and on the citizens who might not be able to afford private security. I am not satisfied that we have sufficient answers that would allow us to go ahead with this amendment at this time.”