[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   LOCAL CONTROL OVER SCHOOL VIOLENCE

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed--I think I can 
appropriately say outraged--that the Gorton-Lieberman local control 
over school violence amendment, which was passed, after a day-long 
debate by this Senate, by a vote of 60-40, with strong bipartisan 
support and with support from five major national education 
associations, was stricken from the bill, the Improving America's 
Schools Act during the course of a conference committee with the House 
of Representatives. And, of course, it was passed by the House of 
Representatives without that amendment being a part of it.
  Time and time again, I have had the opportunity, with other Members 
of this body, to come before my fellow Senators to speak and fight to 
protect our students from the violence that is tearing our society 
apart and is literally destroying educational opportunities for 
thousands of America's young people.
  On two separate occasions now, the Senate has adopted amendments, of 
which I have been a sponsor, dealing with school violence. But, again, 
the conferees on the part of the Senate have retreated from language 
passed by the Senate, ignored the wishes of the majority of the body, 
and have stricken this effective language during conference committees. 
The bipartisan fight for school safety, in other words, has been simply 
ignored.
  This time, the amendment was replaced with a watered down version 
that may actually exacerbate the discipline problems our local school 
officials on the front line experience each and every school day. 
Educators across the country actively supported the language. The 
language accepted by the conferees, on the other hand, simply directs 
the Secretary of Education to disseminate widely the current policy on 
disciplining children with disabilities and directs the Secretary to 
collect data on the incidence of disabled children engaging in life-
threatening behavior or bringing weapons to school and report to 
Congress by the end of January of next year. It will, of course, do 
nothing about violence in the schools during this entire school year, 
at the very least.
  In addition, the act as passed defines the term ``weapon'' as it is 
in the Gun-free Schools Act. The new definition is:

       Any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is 
     designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile 
     by the action of an explosive or any destructive device which 
     includes any explosive, incendiary or poison gas bomb, 
     grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four 
     ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of 
     more than one-quarter ounce.

  Fundamentally, this watered down language that the conferees included 
not only strikes the important life threatening behavior clause, which 
in turn was defined with a great deal of caution, as it is under the 
guidelines for the sentencing commission for those who are to go to 
prison, but the language now in the bill also focuses solely on guns. 
What about knives? What about other weapons that can maim or kill our 
students at schools?
  I must say that I find this action hard to comprehend. Do the members 
of the conference committee really believe that guns are the only 
problems relating to discipline in our schools? Do they not realize 
that guns are only a part of the problem and truly violent life 
threatening behavior is also a serious problem and that other weapons 
are also serious problems? Why did they neglect the pressing safety 
problems in our Nation's schools today? How many more destructive 
incidents have to take place before real action is taken by the 
Congress?

  Mr. President, no student whether or not he or she is defined as 
disabled, has the right to bring a dangerous weapon into a classroom or 
a school or a school-sponsored event, nor should any student be able to 
engage in life-threatening behavior in the classroom or in school 
without appropriate disciplinary action being taken. This type of 
behavior is totally destructive to the learning environment of all of 
our children and must not be tolerated. Our school authorities have to 
be the ultimate repository of authority to deal with these questions in 
their own schools. In spite of the overwhelming logic of this position, 
the conferees dropped this crucial language.
  With the constant increase of violent incidents in our schools, our 
educators, our teachers, our administrators, our school board members, 
must be able to take reasonable measures to protect students and 
teachers and other school personnel from bodily harm while at the same 
time, of course, meeting the needs of children with disabilities for a 
free appropriate public education. The amendment that the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut and I offered and had accepted by this body 
was a first step toward increasing the safety of all students in our 
public schools.
  That amendment, as I have already said, was endorsed by five national 
educational associations. In addition to that, there was strong support 
from the educational community in Washington State where the push for 
this amendment is widespread.
  I received the support of the Washington Association of School 
Principals, the Washington School Directors Association, the Washington 
State PTA, the Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and 
several school districts.
  Violent and disruptive students who prevent others from learning 
cannot be disciplined effectively by reason of Federal rules and the 
fear of lawsuits. Educators must have restored to them the authority to 
address the problems of violent and criminal behavior in their schools. 
They must be able to restore discipline and reduce violence both in our 
schools and in our communities. The amendment proposed to do just 
exactly that. It regained the control of our classrooms and returned 
the authority to school officials to address serious disciplinary 
problems and to be able to do their own jobs of educating our children.
  Today, our educational system by reason of Federal law provides a 
dual system of discipline. Some students who are involved in bringing 
dangerous weapons to class or who demonstrate life-threatening behavior 
are properly disciplined under the authority of school districts, and 
others are not. It is destructive and discriminatory to have one set of 
rules for regular students and another for special education students 
protected under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. The 
message this sends is obviously both unclear and unfair to all 
students.
  The section of our amendment addressing the Individuals With 
Disabilities Act made it permissible immediately to remove a student 
who brings to a school or a school-sponsored event a weapon that 
violates school policies. It also allowed the removal of a student who 
has demonstrated life-threatening behavior in the classroom or on 
school premises. It required that any such child be moved and put into 
an interim alternative setting for up to 90 days until a final decision 
could be reached. If parents called for a due process hearing, the 
child would stay in the interim placement rather than in the classroom 
during the course of that hearing in order to prevent further 
disruptions. That would have provided our teachers and the school 
districts much-needed local disciplinary control.
  Instead, the language that was accepted by the conferees removes the 
life-threatening behavior language completely and solely concentrated 
on guns. In addition to the study it calls for, it allows a student 
protected under IDEA to be removed from the main classroom and placed 
in an interim placement for only 45 days, half of the previous period.
  This watered down language does very little to address the problems 
of our Nation's schools today. Weapons, other than guns, are prevalent 
on school grounds, and extremely violent outbursts are occurring in the 
classrooms with increasing frequency. The Education Committee conferees 
had a chance to increase the safety and protect our children in the 
schools by incorporating the Gorton-Lieberman amendment. Instead, they 
watered down one of the few amendments in the education bill that 
actually would have improved our Nation's schools.
  I am disappointed, I am disgusted, I am outraged that this language 
that would actually make it safer to walk in the halls and to study in 
the rooms of our Nation's schools was stripped from the bill. It was as 
important to me as the rest of the bill. No student can learn in an 
environment plagued with fear and violence. No student should ever have 
to do so.
  I believe firmly that this seriously weakens the entire bill and 
raises significantly the question as to whether or not this subject 
should go over to the next Congress, at which time I am convinced 
public demand for safe schools would cause an amendment of this sort to 
be a part of any bill dealing with the education of our students.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
remarks be delivered as if in executive session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MATHEWS). Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none. It is so ordered. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.

                          ____________________