[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 19, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6695-H6700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STUDENT AND TEACHER SAFETY ACT OF 2006
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 5295) to protect students and teachers, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows
H.R. 5295
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 ``Student and Teacher Safety
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States Department of Education's National
Center for Education Statistics reported in the 2005
Indicators of School Crime and Safety that in 2003 seventeen
percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they carried a
weapon. Six percent reported having carried a weapon on
school grounds.
(2) The same survey reported that 29 percent of all
students in grades 9-12 reported that someone offered, sold,
or gave them an illegal drug on school property within the
last 12 months.
(3) The United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment
guarantees ``the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures''.
(4) That while the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth
Amendment's application to students in public schools in New
Jersey vs. TLO (1985), the Court held that searches of
students by school officials do not require warrants issued
by judges showing probable cause. The Court will ordinarily
hold that such a search is permissible if--
(A) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search
will reveal evidence that the student violated the law or
school rules; and
(B) the measures used to conduct the search are reasonably
related to the search's objectives, without being excessively
intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and nature of
the offense.
(5) The Supreme Court held in Board of Education of
Independent Sch. Dist. 92 of Pottawatomie County vs. Earls
(2002) that random drug testing of students who were
participating in extracurricular activities was reasonable
and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated
that such search policies effectively serve the School
Districts interest in protecting its students' health and
safety.
SEC. 3. SEARCHES BASED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.
(a) In General.--Each local educational agency shall have
in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the agency policies
that ensure that a search described in subsection (b) is
deemed reasonable and permissible.
(b) Searches Covered.--A search referred to in subsection
(a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official,
acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional
experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds
of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure
that classrooms, school buildings, school property and
students remain free from the threat of all weapons,
dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics. The measures used
to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the
search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in
light of the student's age, sex, and the nature of the
offense.
SEC. 4. ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--A local educational agency that fails to
comply with section 3 shall not, during the period of
noncompliance, receive any Safe and Drug Free School funds
after fiscal year 2008.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Safe and Drug
Free School funds'' includes any funds under Part A of Title
IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Kuhl) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 5295.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of H.R. 5295, the
Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006, of which I am a cosponsor. This
bill is designed to help schools take actions to keep students and
property safe from harm and destruction.
We have an obligation to make the learning environment in which our
children attend free from weapons and drugs. By allowing school
officials the ability to use their experience and intuition, we are
eliminating these threats of violence before they have an opportunity
to occur.
Specifically, this bill encourages local school agencies to establish
policies that put parents and students on notice that weapons and drugs
will not be tolerated within school bounds, and gives power to school
officials and full-time teachers to enforce such policies. We all know
that the threat of weapons
[[Page H6696]]
and drugs in school can create an intimidating and threatening
environment making teaching and learning difficult.
The Supreme Court has ruled, and here today we should agree, that
``apart from education, the school has the obligation to protect pupils
from mistreatment by other children, and also to protect teachers
themselves from violence by the few students whose conduct in recent
years has prompted national concern.''
Mr. Speaker, violence in our schools is simply not acceptable.
Nothing is more important than the safety and the well-being of our
children. Parents should feel secure that when children go to school,
they will be completely safe. I say that again, completely safe. This
bill provides some assurance that we are doing all that we can as
parents, as educators and as leaders of this Nation to protect our
children.
If we do not take a stand to keep our schools safe, to keep our
children safe, and to allow our teachers to feel that they are in an
environment where they are protected, then how can we achieve this
goal?
Unless addressed by Congress, public school children will continue to
be unnecessarily exposed to unacceptable levels of crime and school
violence.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Davis), for introducing this important legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 5295, the Student and
Teacher Safety Act of 2006. A vote for this bill is a vote in support
of school officials and teachers who fight to keep weapons and drugs
out of our public schools every day and a vote to allow our children to
have a safe learning environment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as one of the original cosponsors of the Zero Tolerance
for Guns and Weapons in Schools, I have long supported the effort to
make our schools safer, and, in fact, schools are among the safest
places in our entire society for children, but this legislation, I do
not quite understand what it is trying to do.
The suggestion here is that if we just pass this law, that somehow
schools will become safer. The fact of the matter is every school
district, every State has a policy with respect to the bringing onto
campus of drugs, which it is illegal to have on campus, off campus, in
your own home or anywhere else, and the use in bringing on weapons,
which we have a very strong zero tolerance policy against the bringing
of any guns or weapons onto school sites.
It seems to me that this legislation is somehow founded in the idea
that if the Congress just votes, this will, in fact, happen.
Tragically, what we have seen is while people are asking us to vote
on this policy, which is already in place in most school districts, or
all school districts in all of the States in accordance with the State
court decisions and in accordance with the Supreme Court decisions,
what we have is that the Republicans are masking the fact that what
they do is they keep gutting the Safe and Drug-Free School Grants to
the States. They cut those grants from $437 million in 2005 to $346
million in 2006, and the House Republicans want to cut them even
further to $310 million next year.
So the very funds that this Congress has determined and we worked in
partnership with States and school districts over the last several
years to make our schools safer, to help educate children about the
dangers not only of the drugs and of weapons and various kinds of
social behavior, they are now in the process of cutting those, but they
want to pass a law that says to do what we have as a matter of existing
policy, except that this law, in fact, exposes the district to much
more litigation now because now, under the guise of this law, they have
to go back through, and if a student is searched under this law, the
questions are raised all over again which many districts have tried to
settle under State law, under State court interpretations, so that they
can have a policy that works, that the schools are on notice of, and
the students are on notice of, and that the parents are on notice of.
The fact of the matter is that the policy appears to be working across
this country.
So, when we get all done with this, I think what we have with this
legislation is an effort to try and cover what are the more serious
votes taken by this Congress to slash the funding for the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools legislation.
Also, this legislation, if it were to be passed into law, fails to
take into account additional legal standards that have been imposed by
State courts. A uniform search policy can cause difficulties for school
districts and would require it to establish policies to address
requirements of H.R. 5295, as well as legal standards that apply to
respective jurisdictions.
The Congressional Research Service adds that enacting Federal
legislation with respect to school-based searches could, therefore,
interfere with areas of traditional State and local responsibility, of
which there is no showing that the States and local school authorities
are not meeting their responsibilities to their students, to the
teachers, to the staff in the schools, to the parents and to the
communities.
The question is, I guess, just a question of whether or not you think
you trust the Congress more simply to pass a law, of which there have
been no hearings and no discussion with local officials about how to do
this, or whether you trust the people who are running the schools--the
school boards, the school administrators, the principals, the district
superintendents--who, in fact, have the responsibility for the safety
of the children of their districts and of their schools.
It is not much more complicated than that, and you do not have to
take it from me, because the fact is that the National School Boards
Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the
American Federation of Teachers, the National PTA and the Great City
Council Schools all oppose this legislation.
Why do they oppose this legislation? Because this legislation only
makes it a very difficult job that they have been working at and
policies for the safety of our students that they have been refining
over the last decade.
{time} 1745
This legislation just throws all of that open to new interpretations,
to new exposure to liability on the questions of their actions that
they take on a daily basis to keep our schools safe, to keep our
children safe.
They understand this policy. They have developed these policies they
have done in conjunction with the communities that they represent. Now
Congress wants to fly over on suspension without hearings and drop down
a new policy, one size sort of fits all, for all of these school
districts, for all of the schools, when in fact the people we represent
in our communities have been working on these policies a long time
before this legislation was ever suggested. They have been working on
them successfully, they have been working on them within the
intricacies of State and Federal law, and they have developed the
policies in cooperation with the communities and with the parents.
And I would hope that we would reject this legislation, and we would
let those who have to take the responsibility, those who absorb the
liability for their actions, and those who have local cooperation
within their communities on engaging these policies, that they would in
fact be allowed to go forward and continue those policies, and we would
heed the concerns of the Congressional Research Service that we now
have a Federal policy that, if it was to pass, requires this kind of
reaction by all of the States to see whether or not they comply with
this Federal law when in fact they are already complying with the
efforts in their communities to keep their schools safe.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with tremendous
pride to support the Student and Teachers Safety Act. Drugs and
violence simply do not belong in our schools. Our teachers and children
are entitled to a safe learning environment, free from weapons and
illicit narcotics.
Time and again at the Columbine High School in Colorado; in
Jonesboro, Arkansas; and in my home State, at
[[Page H6697]]
Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky, shocking acts of violence have
been planned and unfortunately executed in our schools.
Last week in Green Bay, Wisconsin, the situation turned out
differently. Local law enforcement reacting to information gathered by
school officials were able to thwart an attack being planned by high
school students and save lives.
The National Center for Education statistics found in 2003, the last
year for which we have statistics, 17 percent of students in grades 9
through 12 reported having carried a weapon; 9 percent of students
reported having been threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a
gun, knife, or club, on school property. During the same period, 29
percent of students have been offered drugs on school grounds within
the previous 12 months.
My friends, these numbers are simply unacceptable. The presence of
drugs or weapons in a classroom is not conducive to a productive
learning environment. Metal detectors have become a fact of life in
many of our schools. Despite that fact, weapons are still appearing in
our classrooms.
When I was a child in school, no one doubted who had control of the
classroom. Teachers were clear in their ability to control their
learning environment. Today, we have the opportunity to restore some of
that clarity.
I am a firm believer in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and
I take my oath of office to defend those rights very seriously. This
legislation is simple. This act does not issue a blank check to anyone
to conduct random, unfounded, or mass searches. It does not change the
fourth amendment standards on search and seizure. In fact, it is the
parents and school officials who are empowered by this legislation.
These men and women will work together in individual communities across
the Nation to develop school safety policies that suit the unique needs
of their teachers and students and are based on the constitutional
standards set by the Supreme Court. Nothing more, nothing less.
H.R. 5295 requires local education agencies to have policies in place
that adopt a standard articulated by the Supreme Court in New Jersey v.
T.L.O. This standard allows teachers and school officials to use their
experience and judgments to make decisions that will help control their
classrooms and protect the students.
Our schools and classrooms should be safe places, free from drugs and
weapons; and safety should not be a luxury. Parents should be confident
in the safety of their children at school. Children should be able to
focus on their studies without fear; teachers and school officials
should be confident in their judgment and ability to control school
property.
I am very proud of the work that we have done with the National
Education Association to improve the language of H.R. 5295 since its
original introduction, and I am even more pleased that the National
Education Association has endorsed this legislation as a positive step
toward a safer learning environment for teachers and students
throughout our schools.
A special thank you is due to Chairman McKeon and his staff for their
assistance. I would especially like to recognize the work of three
staffers, Joanna Glaze, Taylor Hansen and James Bergeron. I urge all my
colleagues to support this simple, commonsense legislation to provide
our students and teachers with a safer, more productive learning
environment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking
member for yielding.
I rise in strong support of the expressed intent and expressed
purpose of this legislation. But as one who taught for 6 years in
probably one of the toughest schools and one of the toughest
communities in the country, I have some serious reservations about what
this legislation actually does. And I guess my reservations are not
unfounded, because I find that the American Association of School
Administrators, the National School Boards Association, the Council of
Great City Schools, Parent Teachers Association, American Civil
Liberties Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and of course my
own school district, one of the largest in the Nation, the City of
Chicago School System, has some concerns. And many of the concerns
expressed is that the legislation is unnecessary, because many school
districts already have policies on search that take into consideration
State laws and State court decisions. They are concerned that it
overrides local and State policies on school searches, and that it
establishes one-size-fits-all, although all of us know that
circumstances in different locations and locales are very different.
It sends a confusing message to schools on what legal standards are,
and it establishes a policy that gives teachers authority to conduct
searches when authority for determining who could search should rest
with the school board. And, of course, it penalizes schools
inappropriately for noncompliance by withholding safe and drug free
funds, even though not all school districts receive these funds.
So, Mr. Speaker, while the intent is good, and while all of us want
to see our schools be the safe and secure places we know that they need
to be, I find this legislation to be duplicative, unnecessary, and that
it takes away in some instances rights that should be reserved
certainly for local communities to make determinations about. For that
reason, I oppose this legislation.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes at this time to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman. Columbine High School, Colorado.
East High School, Green Bay. Hubbard Wood School in Winnetka. Each of
these schools bore witness to an attack or an attempted attack using a
gun in school. I served as a teacher, and I remember the kids who were
the brightest lights of our country's future, and I also remember those
who bore scrutiny as people who might bring a gun to class. Americans
have the right to send their kids to safe, gun-free classrooms. Just
last week, alert school officials foiled a Columbine-style attack on a
Green Bay school. In my district, we were not so lucky in Winnetka.
There, an attacker shot and killed a child and wounded five others in
class. Jeffrey Phillips of my own staff was a first grader in that
school on that day.
I spoke with a number of fellow teachers who say they hesitate before
searching a child. Dan Larsen and Andrew Conneen, teachers at Stevenson
High School in Lincolnshire, told me that teachers many times hesitate
before searching a book bag for a gun. They worry about being punished;
they worried about being sued. This bill reassures teachers that they
have the power to search any minor child to make sure that their
classroom remains gun free. And the Nation's largest teachers union,
the National Education Association, strongly endorsed this bill.
Like all other American workers, teachers deserve to work in a safe,
drug-free, and gun-free workplace. Diane Shust and Randall Moody of the
NEA wrote: ``On behalf of the 3.2 million members of the NEA, we would
like to commend you for introducing the Student and Teacher Safety Act.
H.R. 5295 will help promote a safe school environment.''
The National Education Association knows that there is nothing more
important than the safety of children and teachers who have dedicated
their lives to education. Let common sense prevail. This bill puts
teachers back in charge and makes classrooms safer. If this bill helps
one teacher stop one Columbine massacre, then Congress today will have
served the Nation well and protected its children. I urge Members to
support this bill so strongly backed by the National Education
Association.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the so-called Student and Teacher
Safety Act. This bill would impose a one-size-fits-all policy on
student searches on every school district in the country.
You know, in my experience with children and youth, it is a mistake
to assume that every student is as guilty as a few troubled persons,
making all youth feel guilty because a few actually are.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would strip Safe and Drug-Free School Acts
funding from any school district that decides that local parents, that
teachers,
[[Page H6698]]
and administrators know better than Congress how to make their schools
safe. In fact, the President and the Republican Congress have cut Safe
and Drug-Free funding every year since the year 2002.
This bill's proponents argue that it will clarify student search
rules for school administrators and teachers, but the American
Association of School Administrators has said that the bill simply will
create unnecessary new Federal mandates. The American Federation of
Teachers has said that the bill will complicate school districts'
efforts to develop student search policies. And the National Parent
Teacher Association, the PTA, has said that the bill fails to improve
the safety of students and school personnel.
Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about school safety, we will reject
this bill, we will reject the President's and this Congress's
continuing cuts to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, and we will
stop any new program that would label all youth as guilty.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5295, the
Student and Teachers Safety Act of 2006, and I commend my friend and
colleague Geoff Davis for introducing this important legislation.
According to a 2004 study by the National Center for Education
Statistics, one in 10 students reported being threatened or injured
with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property; three
out of 10 students in grades nine through 12 reported that someone had
offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property.
Moreover, more than seven out of 10 public schools experienced one or
more violent incidents in 1999 and 2000, amounting to over 1.5 million
violent incidents.
Louisiana families are demanding safe schools for their children, and
H.R. 5295 would codify the guidelines established by the U.S. Supreme
Court in New Jersey v. T.L.O., which held that reasonable searches by
school officials do not require a warrant signed by a judge if the
search would reveal that the student violated the law or school rules.
{time} 1800
The bill would also require that any searches be conducted in a
manner appropriate to the age, gender and nature of the offense.
This is just codifying what the Supreme Court already has ruled upon,
and it simplifies this matter as opposed to confusing it as is
suggested by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
This legislation is supported by the National Education Association,
and it will help promote a safe school environment for both students
and teachers.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
(Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5295, the
Student and Teacher Safety Act. This legislation builds upon the past
efforts of this Congress to bolster school safety, and I commend Mr.
Geoff Davis of Kentucky for leading the charge on this legislation.
Enhancing school safety is not a new priority for this House. Earlier
this year, we sent to President Bush legislation that included a
proposal of my committee colleague Mr. Porter to provide schools with
criminal history records for individuals seeking to work with or around
children.
Today we have the opportunity to take another step towards safer
classrooms. The Student and Teacher Safety Act simply asks schools to
adopt policies that put them in compliance with the legal standard
established by the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to the reasonable
nature of student searches. As such, the bill enjoys a tremendous
consensus of support, including leading teacher unions and school
safety advocates. These groups support the commonsense steps that this
bill will take, and I include a letter from the National Education
Association for the Record at this point.
National Education Association,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2006.
Representative Geoff Davis,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Davis: On behalf of the National
Education Association's (NEA) 3.2 million members, we would
like to commend you for introducing the Student and Teacher
Safety Act (H.R. 5295), which will help ensure a safe
teaching and learning environment in all public schools. We
thank you and our staff for your willingness to engage in a
constructive dialogue and to make changes to your original
draft based on our suggestions. With these changes, we are
pleased to offer our support for H.R. 5295.
NEA believes that a safe and effective learning climate is
necessary for promoting educational excellence in public
schools. All students and education employees must be safe
from violence, and procedures must be in place to prevent and
eliminate all types of disruption or harassment that might
occur.
H.R. 5295 will help promote a safe school environment by
requiring districts to have in place policies addressing
reasonable student searches. Specifically, required policies
under your bill must allow education employees or school
officials to conduct student searches when acting on
reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and
judgment. We believe that such policies will help ensure that
classrooms, school buildings, school property, and students
remain free from the threat of weapons and other dangerous
materials.
We believe your bill strikes a proper balance between
ensuring the safety of students and educators and protecting
student rights. We thank you for your efforts on this
important issue and we look forward to continuing to work
with you to ensure great public schools for every student.
Sincerely,
Diane Shust,
Director of Government Relations.
Randall Moody,
Manager of Federal Policy and Politics.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, this legislation empowers full-time teachers
or school officials, when acting on suspicion based on professional
experience and judgment, to search students on public school grounds,
and allows States and school districts to conduct reasonable searches
to ensure that the schools remain free of all weapons, dangerous
materials or illegal narcotics.
I cannot imagine anyone that would oppose this kind of legislation
based on the fact that we all, working together, want to make schools
safer for our students and teachers.
In order for our Nation's students to get the most out of their
education, it is imperative that they feel safe inside the classroom.
Last week's report of two Wisconsin teens plotting a school shooting
spree only served to underscore the need to ensure that our teachers,
administrators and parents have the necessary tools to keep the
classrooms safe and focused on what they are meant for, learning.
Parents should be at ease when sending their children to school.
Teachers and administrators should know that we are empowering them
with resources to make sure that we are keeping their workplaces safe.
And most of all, students deserve to learn in as safe an environment as
possible.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure
to bolster school safety.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to thank
my friends and colleagues, Mr. Davis and Mr. Kuhl, for introducing this
outstanding legislation, and I am proud to join them in strong support
of the Student and Teacher Safety Act.
As a father, I am very concerned about my children's safety during
the school day. Every morning, my wife and I, we send our children off
to school to prepare them for a better and brighter future. I expect
them to learn in a safe, secure and nurturing environment, an
environment incompatible with weapons and violence. Unfortunately,
statistics show that this may not be the case.
I am shocked by the statistics that describe the threat drugs and
guns pose in our schools. According to a national survey of high school
students in 2003, 29 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported having
been offered drugs on school grounds; 9 percent of students reported
having been threatened or injured by a weapon such as a gun or
[[Page H6699]]
knife on school property; and almost 7 percent of students in these
same grades said they had missed at least one school day because they
felt unsafe at or traveling to or from school.
Statistics show America has a problem. It is up to Congress to
provide the tools our educators need to combat this threat. Back when I
was a student in high school, if a teacher asked me to show them the
contents of my locker, I would have complied. It was a simpler time.
Today our teachers' hands are tied with incoherent regulations and the
constant threat of litigation that prevents them from confidently
acting on perceived threats to their students. That is why this act is
so important.
H.R. 5295 will provide much-needed clarity for school districts in
setting policies for school searches. Specifically, this legislation
will require school districts and other local education agencies to
create a policy that is firmly founded upon the fourth amendment
protections and follows the controlling Supreme Court decision on
school searches, New Jersey v. TLO.
I am proud to be listed as a cosponsor of this legislation, and I
call on my colleagues in Congress to support its passage here today.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers
other than myself to close, so if the gentleman from California would
like to close at this time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
It is rather interesting that this legislation comes up with no
hearings, no discussion with the school districts, no discussion with
local authorities who have the obligations to meet the demands that we
cavalierly talk about here. This Court decision I believe is 1985. That
is what school districts have been struggling with is to try to put in
a policy that meets the test of reasonableness and also protects them
in terms of liability and the teacher in terms of liabilities.
We cited Columbine here. I can't believe there is a school district
in Colorado that doesn't have a policy dealing with guns on campus in
compliance with Federal law where there is zero tolerance for guns on
campus or you can lose your funding.
Paducah, Kentucky, and the tragedy there, I can't believe there is a
school district in Kentucky that has not responded in the years since
those tragedies.
The fact of the matter is every school district in the country has a
policy like this because they can, in fact, be sued for not having a
policy, for not taking reasonable steps to protect their students and
faculty and staff.
Here we have the United States Congress apparently read a report of
statistics and studies of all of the activities which is illegal under
State and Federal law. They have read that now and have decided 10, 20
years later that the school districts are not doing anything, are not
taking action, and the Federal Government has to tell them to take this
action. It is incredibly arrogant and an insult to people who every day
live on the front lines for the protection of those students and those
faculty members and those staff members and for those children whose
charge they have to think that somehow they have not developed the best
policy they possibly can within the confines of the fourth amendment,
within the confines of their State interpretation of State laws.
That is what school districts struggle with all of the time. That is
what they do for a living. Those are the measures they can take. This
idea that somehow if you codify this Supreme Court decision, the TLO
decision, that somehow if you codify this and they are immune from
liability, no, they are not. Someone would go to the court and decide
it was an unreasonable search, and you will be right back with
liability, just as is done all of the time under the fourth amendment.
What school districts have tried to do is to build a policy over a
period of years to try to make it the most effective policy and also
make sure that they are not exposing the district and others to all
kinds of different liabilities, but to have an effective policy.
Does anybody here suggest that is not their purpose? Does anybody
suggest that they have not done this since Columbine, they have not
done this since Paducah, or they have not done this since the shootings
in Oregon? Of course they have.
And you know what, they would probably be in a much better standing
if you would keep cutting the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, if you
quit cutting the money that is available to them in education so they
could make these policies even more effective, and they could spend
even more time with the students working on why these behavior patterns
should not be allowed, why schools should be a safe place, why schools
should not be allowed to be the street. There should be bright lines
between the schools and streets. That is what schools are seeking to do
all the time.
But here is the Federal Government 10, 20 years later after the
policy was announced saying, I guess you are not doing anything, and we
are going to tell you to do it. We are going to tell you to do it this
way or the highway.
It just doesn't make any sense. It just doesn't comport with what all
of us know is going on in the districts that we represent. Either that,
or you have never visited a school, you have never talked to a school
administrator, or never talked to a superintendent or a teacher. The
fact of the matter is that they struggle with this all of the time, and
they do it within the confines of the decision that you say is
controlling. They know that. That is why they hire attorneys. That is
why the policy parties that are responsible for coming up with this,
that is why they oppose this.
But this will be the Congress who tells them, do it our way, that is
the only way; and now we will have to go back through all of these
policies and start over from ground zero. It just doesn't make any
sense. It denies what we all know is, in fact, taking place in school
districts and schools all over this country every day as those
individuals struggle to keep those educational institutions safe for
the students who are attending them. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time to close on this bill.
It seems as though there is a long distance between this side of the
aisle and the other side of the aisle, because my friend Mr. Miller
fails to recognize the statistics that the honorable gentleman from
Kentucky mentioned. Regardless of the fact that there are school
districts who are attempting to make changes in their disciplinary
policies protecting students, the fact is that violence remains a very,
very big issue in our schools. It needs to be resolved.
People, like the teachers on the front lines combating this violence
and protecting our students, are not necessarily afforded the
opportunities to do that. That is what this bill does. I applaud Mr.
Davis for bringing it forward.
The bill simply asks, and while my friend Mr. Miller would try to
distort what the bill actually does, the bill asks school districts,
each and every one of them separately, to develop and implement a
policy on school safety. Nowhere in this legislation is language
requiring what the policy should look like or how strict or relaxed it
should be. The legislation merely allows each and every individual
school district to craft unique policies with guidance established by
the Supreme Court decision. That Supreme Court decision, and I will
quote again, simply says apart from education, the school, and I
underline the school, has the obligation to protect pupils from
mistreatments by other children and also to protect teachers themselves
from violence by the few students whose conduct in recent years has
promoted national concern.
Now let's go to the actual language. I don't know whether Mr. Miller
has had an opportunity to read the bill, but the bill itself
specifically says each local educational agency shall have in effect
throughout the jurisdiction of the agency policies that ensure that a
search described in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and
permissible. No question about it.
Some people might concern themselves with the fact that this might be
[[Page H6700]]
an overextension of personal rights, but the Supreme Court has defined
what is permissible. In no way does this bill give permission for
school officials to perform mass or strip searches of students. No way.
Also, Mr. Miller, let me assure you that while you can make
castigations about this side of the aisle trying to balance the budget,
nobody on this side of the aisle has suggested that funding for the
implementation of this program is to be deleted. As a matter of fact,
we openly support increased funding to implement this policy
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Student and
Teacher Safety Act of 2006, H.R. 5295. Although this bill seeks a noble
end, protecting our children and their teachers, it gives me pause
because it authorizes school systems to strip away student's
constitutional rights.
All children should feel safe at school. All teachers should be
secure while carrying out their mission of teaching our children. We
all agree on this. However laudable these goals of safety and security
may be, they should not be sought at the expense of the rights of our
children.
School is not only a place where children learn math, reading, and
writing.School is also a place where children learn how to be citizens
in a free society. Being a citizen of this country means living free
from the fear of unnecessary searches and government harassment. My
fear is that when we expose our children to constant violations of
their privacy through limitless drug tests and unreasonable searches
during their school years, they will grow up to believe that violations
of their constitutional rights are the norm in our country. The future
generations that we will depend on to defend the Bill of the Rights may
no longer know what those rights are. They may be all too willing to
accept ever-increasing government intrusion into their private lives.
In an age of warrant-less wiretaps and secret surveillance, this is not
a risk I am willing to take.
In addition, this bill does not adequately protect the privacy
interests of our students. In 1969, the Supreme Court said that
children do not leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse
door. Yet this bill is so vaguely and broadly worded that it
potentially opens a ``Pandora's Box'' of 4th Amendment violations in
our schools. This bill does not require that school officials actually
suspect an individual of wrongdoing before searching them. Rather, it
allows for searches if a school official thinks that his or her actions
will help the school remain drug free.
I am worried that this bill will lead to instances similar to what
happened in Goose Creek, South Carolina in November of 2003. School
officials in Goose Creek suspected that a student was dealing drugs in
the high school.
They then subjected 150 students to a police raid, and drug dogs
going through student's backpacks. The searches occurred despite the
fact that the suspected drug dealer was absent from school on that day.
Not surprisingly, no drugs were found. Unfortunately, 150 students were
humiliated by the school officials that are supposed to guide them on
their journey to adulthood.
School safety is a vitally important issue. Children must be able to
learn in an environment free from fear and violence. Providing students
and teachers with safe schools does not require students to check their
civil liberties at the door. The Bill of Rights envisions a balance
between individual freedoms and law enforcement. That balance has
served our country well for more than two centuries. There is no reason
that such a balance cannot be struck in our school system. If we want
safe schools we should invest in afterschool and mentoring programs. We
should invest in programs that teach children how to resolve conflicts
in non-violent ways. We should teach our children that they have
privacy rights that follow them wherever they go, including to school.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 5295, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Kuhl) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 5295, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________