[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 134 (Thursday, September 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      KEEPING GUNS OUT OF SCHOOLS

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge the House-Senate 
conferees who are currently meeting to uphold current law regarding 
guns in schools by retaining the Gun-Free Schools Act in the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Just 3 days into the school year, a student was critically wounded at 
a New York City high school after his assailant smuggled a .32 caliber 
handgun past hand-held metal detectors.
  On September 7, at Hollywood High School in Los Angeles, a 10th grade 
student was shot and killed right in front of the school campus in an 
apparent gang-related shooting.
  And, in the latest example of schoolyard violence, a 16-year-old girl 
was shot in the back while taking a nutrition break on a south Los 
Angeles high school football field just 2 days ago. It appears to be 
another gang-related shooting.
  Violence in our communities--but particularly in and around our 
schools--is simply out of hand. And it's time for Congress to stop 
making excuses and to do something about it.
  An estimated 135,000 guns are brought to school every day in this 
Nation, according to the National Education Association and the 
National School Boards Association.
  Shootings or hostage situations have been reported in schools in at 
least 35 States and the District of Columbia, according to a 1990 
report by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. And since 1993 alone, 
guns at school have resulted in at least 35 deaths and 94 injuries 
nationwide, according to a search of recent news articles done by 
National School Safety Center.
  How can we expect our children to learn in they go to school in 
constant fear of being shot or killed?
  Making our schools gun-free is the single most important component of 
the $12 billion Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA] now 
awaiting final approval.
  Let me read from some of the letters I have received in support of 
the Gun-Free Schools Act:
  From a junior in Concord, CA:

       I hate coming to school every day thinking that I might not 
     live through the day because of people who carry guns at 
     school.

  From a principal in Oregon:

       With the work we try to do in public schools it is 
     virtually impossible if we live with the threat of violence 
     and concern for well being of our children. As a school 
     principal, I can assure you that each day I worry about my 
     kids at school and each parent who sends their children to us 
     to educate and keep safe.

  The Senate unanimously adopted the gun-free school amendments to 
require any school district that receives Federal funds to adopt a zero 
tolerance policy for guns in schools.
  This would require every school district in American to expel a 
student for 1 year if they carry a gun to school. School administrators 
would have some flexibility to offer exemptions to this policy, but it 
is time to stop making excuses about guns in school.
  The Los Angeles Unified School District has already implemented its 
own gun-free school policy--because their students were getting killed.
  Seventeen-year-old Michael Ensley was shot dead by a classmate during 
a snack break at Reseda High School in February 1993.
  Sixteen-year-old Demetrius Rice was slain in January 1993 at Fairfax 
High School when a classmate accidentally fired a .357 magnum during an 
English class.
  Saying ``enough is enough,'' the Los Angeles School District adopted 
a gun-free school policy.
  And after the policy was in place, gun-related violence decreased by 
14 percent over the previous year--and expulsions for gun possession 
declined 256 in 1992-93 to 166 in 1993-94.
  The Los Angeles Times recently wrote in an editorial in support of 
this legislation:

       The (California) law governing expulsions is less severe 
     than district policies in Los Angeles and Orange counties. As 
     in many other states, California law allows districts either 
     to expel or transfer students. But the mandatory expulsion 
     policies in effect locally, rather than the more lenient 
     state law, should become a norm in California and elsewhere.
       (The federal) legislation would deny federal assistance to 
     schools that do not require expulsion of students found with 
     firearms on campus. (The) bill allows some flexibility on 
     expulsion on a case-by-case basis. This provision is 
     currently part of the larger Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act.
       Both Feinstein's bill and the L.A. district's zero-
     tolerance policies allow school officials enough latitude to 
     protect innocent students. For example, students who discover 
     that classmates have, as a prank, planted a gun in their 
     backpack or locker will not warrant expulsion. But when due 
     process has been served, the needs of students to be safe in 
     school must continue to take precedence.

  I entirely agree, and support for this approach is growing. The 
American Federation of Teachers, one of the Nation's largest teachers 
unions, recently voted in support of zero-tolerance provisions to 
protect students and faculty from school violence.
  Making schools gun-free can work and it's our responsibility to hold 
firm that Congress will not tolerate allowing guns on school campuses.
  An identical amendment was already approved as part of the Goals 2000 
education bill that was approved earlier this year and passed into law. 
Congress has no excuse but to apply the gun-free school amendment to 
this major education bill that provides $12 billion in Federal funding 
over 6 years.
  This measure sends a strong signal about school violence. The current 
practice of simply relocating a student to another school must end. 
Even a temporary suspension or short-term expulsion is not enough, and 
simply requiring schools to develop a policy--the provision in the 
House bill--is entirely insufficient.
  This measure is carefully written to define the offense clearly, give 
districts time to develop and/or adjust their policies, provide 
officials with flexibility in extenuating circumstances, and allow 
alternative schooling for offenders.
  I thank my Senate colleagues for refusing to recede to the House on 
this issue, and I urge the House conferees to reconsider their position 
on this vital issue. I sincerely hope the conference committee will 
keep this amendment in the bill and that it will remain the law of the 
land.

                          ____________________