PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Dec 21, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require each state receiving funds under that Act to have in effect policies and procedures that: (1) require criminal background checks for school employees, including searches of state criminal registries or repositories, state-based child abuse and neglect registries and databases, the National Crime Information Center of the Department of Justice, the National Sex Offender Registry, and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and (2) prohibit the employment of school employees who refuse to consent to a criminal background check, make false statements in connection with one, or have been convicted of one of a list of felonies or any other crime that is a violent or sexual crime against a child.
Lists those felonies as: (1) homicide; (2) child abuse or neglect; (3) crimes against children; (4) spousal abuse; (5) crimes involving rape or sexual assault; (6) kidnapping; (7) arson; and (8) physical assault, battery, or drug-related offenses, committed within the past five years.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires local educational agencies (LEAs) or state educational agencies (SEAs) to report to local law enforcement any applicants for school employment who are discovered to be sexual predators.
Requires periodic repetitions of such criminal background checks.
Requires such states to provide for a timely process under which school employees may: (1) appeal the results of a criminal background check to challenge the accuracy or completeness of the information produced; and (2) seek appropriate relief for any final employment decision based on materially inaccurate or incomplete information produced. Requires this appeals process, however, to deny the individual employment as a school employee during the process.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, George [D-CA-7] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 314 - 20 (Roll no. 663). (text: CR H8801)
House roll call 663 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 314 - 20 (Roll no. 663).(text: CR H8801)
House roll call 663 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8915)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6547.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8801-8802)
Mr. Miller, George moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6547 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6547 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6547 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6547 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.