[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 64 (Wednesday, May 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4805-S4808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ASHCROFT:
  S. 969. A bill to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act and the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 to authorize schools to apply 
appropriate discipline measures in cases where students have weapons or 
threaten to harm others, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                       school safety act of 1999

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in the past two weeks since the tragedy 
occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, we have all 
had time to reflect on a number of issues. Our thoughts and prayers go 
to the families, friends, and other loved ones affected by this 
incident. We have asked ourselves why this happened. How it happened.
  The Littleton tragedy requires reflection, thought and corrective 
action within our spheres of influence and responsibility. Children 
must learn respect and responsibility. Parents must be responsible for 
their children, including what they watch and what they do. Schools 
must have firm, fair and consistent discipline policies. Schools must 
be free to expel violence-prone students. State legislators must review 
state laws. Congress must review federal laws.
  As a member of the United States Senate, I have been prompted to stop 
and examine our current federal education laws involving school safety, 
and see if our policies are promoting and encouraging school safety--or 
are in some way hindering our teachers, parents, principals, 
superintendents, and school boards from maintaining a safe place for 
our children to learn and our teachers to teach.
  For much of the past year and before the Littleton tragedy, I 
traveled through Missouri talking to teachers, principals, school 
superintendents and school officials about the issue of school safety 
and school discipline. What I heard and learned was disturbing. After 
listening to school officials, I have concluded that there is, in fact, 
at least one federal law that actually jeopardizes our schools' efforts 
to provide a safe learning environment. Today I am introducing 
legislation, the School Safety Act, to amend this law and give schools 
the ability to remove from the classroom students who possess weapons 
or threaten to use weapons in the classroom, so that we can keep our 
children and teachers safe.
  Once enacted, this legislation will help foster a safer environment 
in

[[Page S4806]]

schools. If this legislation had been enacted years ago, would it have 
prevented the Littleton tragedy? It would be wrong to claim for certain 
that it would. The truth of the Littleton tragedy is that those 
involved in the massacre violated at least 13 federal laws. The 
existence of those 13 laws did not stop the Littleton massacre. Still, 
we must examine our current federal education laws involving school 
safety and make necessary changes.
  Across America, parents, teachers, and communities have made it clear 
that we want our schools to offer our students a world-class education 
that boosts student achievement and elevates them to excellence. If 
children are to attain high levels of academic performance, our schools 
must be able to provide safe and secure learning environments free of 
undue disruption or violence.
  When we think of school safety, we obviously turn to one element that 
poses a threat to a secure environment: weapons in schools.
  Our general federal policy is commendable: to have zero tolerance for 
weapons at schools. The federal Gun-Free Schools Act requires states 
receiving federal education funds to have a law requiring a one year 
expulsion of a student who has a weapon at school. I know that my state 
of Missouri has such a law on the books.
  We would think that the Gun-Free Schools Act settles the issue of 
weapons in schools. But it doesn't. This law contains an exception for 
nearly one in seven students in my state, and one in eight nationally. 
This exception is for students covered by the federal Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act.
  Hidden among the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools Act is section 
(c), entitled ``Special Rule,'' which says: ``The provisions of this 
section shall be construed in a manner consistent with the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act.'' When you turn to the IDEA law, you 
see a complex and elaborate set of roadblocks and barriers that 
hamstring schools in applying discipline to any IDEA student for 
situations involving weapons possessions.
  When we talk about students who are subject to the IDEA law, we are 
not talking about any small number of children: In Missouri, over 
129,000--or nearly 14% of our 893,000 students--are classified as 
``disabled.'' That's one in seven students. Nationally, there are about 
12-13% of all students who are under the IDEA law. We have to keep this 
in mind as we talk about this issue of school discipline and safety.
  We must also consider which individuals qualify as ``disabled'' under 
IDEA. We are not just talking about blindness, deafness, orthopedic 
impairments, or MS. The federal IDEA definition of disability also 
includes individuals with serious emotional disturbances or specific 
learning disabilities.
  Unlike the Gun-Free Schools Act, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act does not have a zero tolerance for students with weapons. 
In fact, the IDEA law makes it very difficult for schools to act 
effectively when a student subject to this law has a weapon at school.
  While the Gun-Free Schools Act would require that any other student 
be expelled for a year, the ``special rule'' for an IDEA student who 
brings a gun or knife to school provides that he could be back in the 
regular classroom within 45 days.
  Here is a federal law that creates dangerous situations by not 
allowing school officials to keep those students who have possessed 
weapons in school out of the classroom.
  IDEA also hinders schools from taking effective action to protect 
their students and teachers from students who make threats to use 
weapons. School districts have developed policies to address student 
weapons threats. For example, a superintendent in my state told my 
office that under his school district's policy, he could suspend a 
student for up to 180 days for threatening to bring a weapon to school 
and shoot another student.
  However, if that superintendent is dealing with a student under IDEA, 
the law makes it very difficult for him to remove the student even if 
he considers the student a serious threat to the safety of others. In 
fact, the school may be unable to remove this child from the classroom 
if he has already been suspended for a certain number of days during 
the school year.
  Here is a federal law that creates dangerous situations by not 
allowing school officials to act on early warning signs to remove 
potentially violent students from school.
  The costs involved with trying to keep a dangerous child out of the 
classroom are astronomical under IDEA. Schools have told me that the 
``due process'' proceedings a parent can invoke in response to any 
disciplinary action taken toward a child is so expensive and time-
consuming that schools do all they can to avoid these proceedings. The 
easiest, simplest due process hearing costs a school about $7500 in 
Missouri!
  Not only must schools pay their own legal fees for a due process 
hearing under IDEA, but they also face the prospect of being 
responsible for the parents' attorneys fees in some cases.
  Here is a federal law that discourages safe classrooms because 
schools cannot afford to take steps they deem essential to maintaining 
safety without risking serious financial jeopardy.
  The problems created by IDEA are not simply theoretical. Just three 
weeks ago--before the Littleton incident--I traveled around Missouri to 
talk to parents, teachers, principals, and administrators about ways to 
offer each child a world class education. Again and again, I was told 
that schools are handcuffed by federal law in dealing with violent and 
dangerous behavior--often connected with weapons. Let me give you a few 
examples:
  In one rural Missouri school, a 15-year-old IDEA student had been 
making numerous threats against both students and staff. He said such 
things as, ``I'm going to shoot you. I'm going to get a gun and blow 
you away.'' School officials were aware of the threats, but the federal 
law hindered them from taking steps they thought most appropriate to 
deal with the student. Unfortunately this student ended up shooting 
another student off school grounds. Fortunately, because he remained in 
the custody of law enforcement authorities, the student was not 
returned to the classroom. School officials in this district told me 
that had this student not been subject to the IDEA laws, they could 
have--and would have--removed him from the classroom when he made the 
threats of killing other students and personnel.
  In an eastern Missouri school district, an IDEA student who was under 
school suspension was asked to leave a Friday night school dance that 
he tried to attend in violation of school policy. The student tried 
continually to regain entry into the school and said to the principal, 
a teacher, and a parent who was helping supervise the dance: ``I'm 
going to go home, get my shotgun, come back, and blow your [expletives 
deleted] heads off.'' The superintendent says that the federal IDEA law 
constrained him to return this potentially dangerous student to the 
classroom early the next week. If the student had not had been under 
IDEA, the superintendent could have imposed a far longer suspension for 
threatening school personnel.

  I learned of a Missouri grade schooler, subject to IDEA law, who 
announced at school, ``I'm going to bring a knife and cut the bus 
driver's throat.'' Was this an idle threat? This child had transferred 
from another school where he had been found with a knife and was 
suspended for 10 days. The federal IDEA law prevents this new school 
from imposing any more suspensions upon this child for the rest of the 
school year unless he actually shows up with a weapon again!
  Let me emphasize that the vast majority of disabled students under 
the IDEA law--just like the vast majority of nondisabled students--are 
good kids who don't pose discipline problems in school. However, when 
it comes to something as serious as a student bringing a weapon to 
school or threatening to kill or harm someone with a weapon, school 
officials must have the ability to respond in the way they believe most 
appropriate to maintain a safe and stable school for all children.
  When I hear these incidents from Missouri schools, I cannot help but 
think that there is something drastically wrong with our federal 
education laws. We have a mass tragedy waiting to happen if federal law 
keeps teachers from getting teenagers with weapons out of schools. We 
cannot afford to keep laws on the books that preclude schools from 
dealing with

[[Page S4807]]

early warning signs of danger and handcuff them from taking swift 
action to prevent violence. We must give schools the power to keep our 
children safe by allowing them to remove all students who have weapons 
or threaten to use them.
  Schools all over my state have told me that they need the authority 
to discipline all students in a fair and consistent manner--for the 
safety of their schools and for the benefit of disabled children. Here 
are some examples of what schools have told me:
  Maynard Wallace, Superintendent of the Ava R-I School District, has 
written: ``The discipline code must be the same for all if public 
education is to survive.'' He says that treating children with 
handicaps differently than other children in the area of discipline 
``not only undermines the entire discipline of the school but is a 
definite disservice to the handicapped child as well.''
  Betty Chong, Assistant Superintendent for Special Services in the 
Cape Girardeau school district, writes: ``The educators are themselves 
advocates for children with disabilities. . . . Special educators 
directors and many principals were first teachers who were dedicated 
(and still are) to the education of students with disabilities.'' She 
goes on to say: ``Students with disabilities are held to the same 
standards as students without disabilities when they are adults. When 
do they learn how to be law abiding citizens?''
  Lyle Laughman, the superintendent of the Lincoln County R-IV school 
district has written: ``It is in the total best interest of the child 
and society for that [discipline] determination to be made on the 
local, individual case level rather than the Federal law which greatly 
restricts what a school can do in an individual set of circumstances.''
  Dale Walkup, Board of Education President of the Blue Springs School 
District gave me a copy of a letter he sent to President Clinton which 
says, ``The reauthorization of IDEA has not supported impartial and 
appropriate consequences for those students who choose drugs and are 
violent or dangerous to others. We hope the IDEA regulations become 
more reasonable, appropriate, and considerate of the needs of our total 
student population.''
  In response to both the incidents and recommendations that I have 
heard from schools, I am introducing the School Safety Act, which will 
allow schools to remove from the classroom any student who has a weapon 
or threatens to use a weapon at school. This legislation, which has 
been endorsed by the Missouri School Boards Association, will repeal 
the federal law that handcuffs schools from taking measures they 
believe appropriate to maintain a safe and secure learning environment 
for students and teachers.
  A safe and secure setting is vital to success in the classroom. Any 
student who has a weapon at school, or who threatens to kill or harm 
someone with a weapon, should be removed from the classroom 
immediately. Whether a student is ``disabled'' under federal law should 
not prevent school administrators from dealing appropriately with 
weapons in school. We can no longer afford to keep a federal law that 
threatens the safety of the classroom. We can no longer afford to 
tolerate federal policy that invites a mass tragedy. Under the School 
Safety Act, schools will be empowered with the flexibility and 
authority they need to remove any dangerous and violent student from 
the classroom when weapons are involved.
  This is not the first time I have introduced school safety 
legislation since I have been in the Senate. I have already worked to 
make improvements in the federal law to create a safer learning 
environment for students and teachers.
  I began working on this issue in 1995, after a young woman was found 
dead in the restroom of a North St. Louis County high school. The male 
special education student convicted of murdering the woman had a 
history of dangerous behavior, but his discipline record hadn't been 
disclosed to his new school. In response to this situation, I sought 
for ways to give schools the crucial information they need to maintain 
a secure school environment. I authored legislation signed into law in 
June 1997 providing for the transfer of discipline records when 
students with dangerous behavior change schools.
  In the recent ``ed-flex'' bill signed into law on April 29, 1999, I 
secured a provision that closes a loophole in federal law concerning 
weapons possession in school. Missouri school board officials had 
alerted me to a federal provision that allows a school to discipline a 
student only for carrying a weapon onto school grounds, but not for 
possessing a weapon at school. In response to this concern, I had the 
law amended to ensure that school officials can remove a student from 
the classroom whether he possesses--or carries--a weapon at school.
  The legislation I am offering today builds upon this previous safe 
schools legislation by giving schools authority to remove any student 
from the classroom if he or she brings a weapon to school or threatens 
to kill or harm someone with a weapon.
  Mr. President, a little over a year ago, the Senator from Washington, 
Senator Gorton, read from an editorial in the Seattle Post 
Intelligencer that recounted the story of a disabled student who 
attacked other students with a knife on a school bus. The editorial 
pointed out the disparities caused by the federal IDEA laws. It said: 
``If the school district really is required by law to allow students 
back into class who carry weapons or otherwise have demonstrated intent 
to harm others, that law is in error and must be changed.''
  I could not agree more with this editorial. It is time to change this 
erroneous law, which jeopardizes students and teachers by forcing 
school officials to ignore early warning signs of disaster. Maintaining 
a safe learning environment requires that local school officials have 
the authority and flexibility to discipline all students in an 
equitable and effective manner, especially when it comes to weapons. 
Let's unshackle our teachers, principals, superintendents, and school 
boards from a law that prevents them from keeping our children safe and 
secure. Let's give them the power to stop a tragedy before it happens.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 969

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``School Safety Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

       (a) Placement in Alternative Educational Setting.--Section 
     615(k) of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1415(k)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii), by striking ``45 days if--'' 
     and all that follows through ``(II) the child'' and inserting 
     ``45 days if the child'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``A hearing'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (10), a 
     hearing'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11);
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following new 
     section:
       ``(10) Expulsion or suspension with respect to weapons.--
       ``(A) Authority of school personnel with respect to 
     weapons.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     school personnel may suspend or expel a child with a 
     disability who--
       ``(i) carries or possesses a weapon to or at a school, on 
     school premises, or to or at a school function under the 
     jurisdiction of a State or a local educational agency; or
       ``(ii) threatens to carry, possess, or use a weapon to or 
     at a school, on school premises, or to or at a school 
     function under the jurisdiction of a State or a local 
     educational agency;

     in the same manner in which such personnel would suspend or 
     expel a child without a disability.
       ``(B) Definitions.--For the purposes of this paragraph:
       ``(i) Weapon.--The term `weapon' has the meaning given the 
     term under applicable State law.
       ``(ii) Threatens to carry, possess, or use a weapon.--The 
     term `threatens to carry, possess, or use a weapon' includes 
     behavior in which a child verbally threatens to kill another 
     person.
       ``(C) Free appropriate public education.--
       ``(i) Ceasing to provide education.--A child expelled or 
     suspended under subparagraph (A) shall not be entitled to 
     continued educational services, including, but not limited to 
     a free appropriate public education, under this Act, during 
     the term of such expulsion or suspension, if the State in 
     which the local educational agency responsible for providing 
     educational services to such child

[[Page S4808]]

     does not require a child without a disability to receive 
     educational services after being suspended or expelled.
       ``(ii) Providing education.--Notwithstanding clause (i), 
     the local educational agency responsible for providing 
     educational services to a child with a disability who is 
     expelled or suspended under subparagraph (A) may choose to 
     continue to provide educational services to such child. If 
     the local educational agency so chooses, then--
       (I) nothing in this Act shall require the local educational 
     agency to provide such child with a free appropriate public 
     education, or any particular level of service; and
       (II) the site where the local educational agency provides 
     the services shall be left to the discretion of the local 
     educational agency.
       (5) in paragraph (11) (as redesignated in paragraph (3)), 
     by striking subparagraph (D).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 612(a)(1)(A) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1)(A)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period ``(except as provided 
     in section 615(k)(10))''.
       (2) Section 615(f)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)) is amended by inserting 
     at the beginning of the first sentence ``Except as provided 
     in section 615(k)(10),''.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE GUN-FREE SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994.

       Subsection (c) of section 14601 of the Gun-Free Schools Act 
     of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 8921) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, this section shall be subject to section 
     615(k)(10) of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(10)).''.

                          ____________________