PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1345-1347)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 12, 2015
Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act
Requires states that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to:
require criminal background checks for each school employee that include searches of the criminal registry or repository of the state in which the employee resides, the child abuse and neglect registries and databases of that state, the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Sex Offender Registry;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
prohibit the employment of an individual who refuses to consent to, or who makes a false statement in connection with, a background check or who has been convicted of one of specified felonies or of a violent or sexual crime against a minor;
require background checks to be periodically repeated or updated in accordance with state law or the policies of the state's local educational agencies (LEAs);
provide school employees who have had a background check with a copy of the background check if they request one and a timely process to appeal the results of the background check if it blocks their service as a school employee;
ensure that such policies and procedures are published on state and LEA websites; and
allow an LEA to share the results of a recent background check on a school employee with another LEA that is considering that individual for employment.
Prohibits states and LEAs from knowingly transferring or facilitating the transfer of any school employee if they know, or have substantive reason to believe, that such employee engaged in sexual misconduct with an elementary or secondary school student.
Allows: (1) the Attorney General and state law enforcement officials to charge reasonable fees for conducting the background checks, and (2) states and LEAs to use ESEA administrative funds to pay such fees.
People & committees
Sen. Toomey, Patrick [R-PA] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1345-1347)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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 S.474 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 S.474 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 S.474 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 S.474 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.