[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18521-18527]
[From the U.S. 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 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.''

[[Page 18522]]

  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 Heath High School in 
Paducah, Kentucky, shocking acts of violence have been planned and 
unfortunately executed in our schools.

[[Page 18523]]

  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

[[Page 18524]]

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, 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

[[Page 18525]]

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 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

[[Page 18526]]

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 
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. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Student and Teacher Safety Act.
  Two days after celebrating the anniversary of the signing of the 
Constitution, this House comes to the floor to debate a bill to limit 
the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment to students in our 
Nation's schools. This bill purports to make schools safer for our 
children and the employees of those schools. Instead it adds an 
unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that protects no one.
  We make a mistake when we rely on randomized searches to prevent the 
abuse of drugs by children and ensure the peaceful resolution of 
conflict. Instead of focusing our efforts on educating our children 
about conflict resolution and engaging them in the decisions about 
their lives and futures, random searches assume all youth are the same. 
Searches of students' property may be right and entirely necessary in 
situations with reasonable evidence of wrongdoing. But randomized 
searches render all youth suspect and treat them as criminals. High 
expectations for our children may reap great rewards, but what will we 
sow with the expectation of deception?
  We should rather focus our time and energy on equipping students with 
the tools and skills necessary to make responsible decisions about 
their lives. Our guidance must not be based on suspicion and an 
expectation of poor choices. An environment of distrust will not 
encourage students to seek out teachers or administrators when they are 
in trouble or need advice. It will not help students to develop strong 
character or stand up to negative peer pressure. Instead, it will only 
further isolate them from the teachers and advisors they see every day.
  This bill will not make students and teachers safer. It will only 
create new divisions between them, I urge my colleagues to reject this 
bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Maintaining school safety is an 
important objective of school administrators and communities around the 
country, but this bill will only serve to complicate the lives of 
school officials and probably violate students' Constitutional rights 
in the process.
  In 1969, the Supreme Court stated in Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 
503 (1969) that students do not ``shed their constitutional rights when 
they enter the schoolhouse door.'' While Tinker was a free speech case, 
the principle applies here as well. The vague legislative language of 
H.R. 5295 would lead school officials to believe that they have the 
authority to conduct searches that could be at odds with the standards 
set out by the Supreme Court in the 1985 decision of New Jersey v. TLO, 
469 U.S. 325 (1985), the 1 guiding case on this issue, in which the 
Court attempted to strike a balance between student privacy and school 
discipline and safety.
  While this bill correctly requires that school officials have 
``reasonable suspicion'' before conducting a search of a student, it 
describes too broadly the purpose and the scope of the search that 
school administrators can conduct. The bill incorrectly suggests that 
school officials can conduct random, wide scale searches of students 
without having any individualized suspicion that a particular student 
to be searched is participating in criminal activity or breaking the 
school rules.
  When schools officials do not focus student searches on individuals 
who are suspected of violating the law or school rules, the results of 
the searches are often fruitless. School administrators will do more to 
improve children's safety by concentrating on suspicious behavior and 
credible information from teachers and students that school rules or 
criminal laws are being broken, than by conducting widespread 
unsubstantiated searches.
  While this legislation is well intentioned, it nonetheless 
constitutes bad policy and is constitutionally unsound. Even if the 
language in the bill accurately reflects today's constitutional 
standards, Court decisions are often modified by subsequent decisions. 
School officials may therefore find themselves in the future caught 
between complying with an obsolete statute or obeying the modified 
Court decision and risking the loss of funding under this bill.
  School districts have a long history of abiding by search and seizure 
policies that are consistent with court rulings. This legislative 
directive is unnecessary and will only serve to further complicate the 
lives of students and teachers. This is the reason why the American 
Federation of Teachers, National School Board Association, the Council 
of the Great

[[Page 18527]]

City Schools, the National PTA, the American Association of School 
Administrators and the ACLU all oppose the bill. I urge my colleagues 
to vote no.
  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.

                          ____________________