Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator that I may still move to table the Frist-Ashcroft amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I have a right to do that.

Mr. HARKIN. I may move to table; whereupon, after that motion to table is dispensed with, one way or the other--obviously, I am sure I would lose on that--the bill then becomes open to amendment. I may have some amendments to the Frist-Ashcroft amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Amendments. And that could only occur, if I understand the parliamentary procedure, after a motion to table is dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. At this point. Parliamentary inquiry. If I move to table the Frist-Ashcroft amendment, and that is disposed of, as I understand the unanimous- consent request, the bill then would be open for amendment--or the amendment would be open then after there is an action on it, on that amendment, on the motion to table.

Mr. HARKIN. No. No. What would happen if the Frist amendment were not tabled?

Mr. HARKIN. If I might, Mr. President, reclaiming my right to the floor----

Mr. HARKIN. On the parliamentary inquiry, I just want to read from the unanimous-consent request, Order No. 8. Ordered further, That the following amendments be the only remaining first degree amendments in order, with relevant second degree amendments in order thereto only after a vote on or in relation to the first degree amendment and the amendments limited to time agreements, where noted, all to be equally divided in the usual form. So, obviously, a tabling motion would be a vote in relation, and therefore reading that, I submit, that then relevant second-degree amendments would be in order. I make that parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HARKIN. Again----

Mr. HARKIN. Offering amendments.

Mr. HARKIN. You want to read that unanimous consent request again? I am still----

Mr. HARKIN. Or any motion to table.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, then under his proposal, how many second-degree amendments could be offered to the Frist- Ashcroft amendment if, in fact, the tabling motion was not agreed to?

Mr. HARKIN. Relevant second-degree amendments, in the plural?

Mr. HARKIN. Let me ask one other question about this unanimous consent request. Let's say someone wants to set this aside and move on to another amendment. Would that be allowed under this proposal?

Mr. HARKIN. I just want to make sure my rights are protected. That is all. I just want to look at it.

Mr. HARKIN. Not at this time I cannot, I say to my friend. I cannot at this time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I said, I take a backseat to no one in my concern for safety in schools, having a daughter who is a senior in high school now and a daughter who just graduated from college, both of whom have attended public schools all of their lives. I daresay that what has precipitated this bill has been the recent tragedy in Littleton, CO, and the eight shootings over 39 months in our public schools in America. These tragedies have, indeed, called us to action, called us as families, churches, schools, communities, parents, teachers, and, yes, as lawmakers. I hope these tragedies lead us all to take positive and constructive steps to reduce the likelihood of any recurrence. We want to make sure all of our schools are places of learning, not of fear. But we should not let this tragedy of Littleton lead us into emotional, unfounded, though well-intentioned actions which can harm the most vulnerable in our society, and those are our kids with disabilities. I know that the amendment is well-intentioned. The Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Missouri are good people. But this would amend the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and I believe in the deepest part of my being that this amendment will have just the opposite effect. If enacted, it will do a couple of things. It will make our schools and communities less safe, and it will turn the clock back on all the advances we have made in our country to ensure that kids with disabilities have a fair shot at the American dream. This amendment targets a group of students who are more likely to be the victims of school violence than the perpetrators. It is the kids with disabilities, now mainstreamed into our schools, who are beat up on, preyed upon, made fun of by nondisabled kids. Time and time again, it is the kids with disabilities who are the victims of the violence. This has been true for a long time, a long time. Why are we singling them out with this amendment? None, not one, of the eight school shootings in the last 39 months was perpetrated by a child in special education. So why do we have this amendment? Well, I just want to point out, sadly, four of the students shot in the rampage at Columbine High School were special ed kids --four of them. So why are we singling out kids with disabilities? Why are we changing a law that we passed 2 years ago, that we just got the regulations issued in March of this year, which has not had even an opportunity to work? Why are we doing it? Well, I forget which Senator it was who said, well, we do not want to wait until something bad happens. My gosh, under that philosophy, what else can we do to our schools? How about all the kids with disabilities? What are we going to do with them if we don't want to wait until something bad happens? That philosophy can take you down a lot of alleys, a lot of dead-end alleys. I think the answer to ``we don't want to wait till something bad happens'' is exactly why we passed the amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2 years ago. That is why we have said, if a kid is violent, brings a gun to school, they can get them out immediately to protect the school. I hope everyone heard here today--we finally got an agreement on that point--that if a kid brings a gun to a school, regardless of whether that kid is disabled or not, they can call up the police and have that kid hauled down to the police station immediately, immediately. Now, when there is some thought around here that somehow because a kid is disabled, the principal has to go through all kinds of hoops to get them out of school, I say that is not true. And we finally at least got that nailed down today. I yield to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. I still have the floor. I will yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Red light, green light.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield under those conditions.

Mr. HARKIN. I want to see the lay of the land before I answer a question like that.

Mr. HARKIN. No, I don't feel that I am. I haven't even finished my statement yet. As I said earlier to my friend from Utah, I believe there are a lot of misperceptions out there on this amendment, and being the poor debater that I am and the poor teacher that I am, I don't believe that I have fully and adequately represented what this means to families with kids with disabilities. It will probably take a little longer simply because I am so poor at getting across my point, it seems. So I am going to have to take a look at that before I make any decisions. I am not going to answer hypothetical questions.