Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). (Mr. EDWARDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. SCOTT. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. SCOTT. Who has the right to close?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we had a bill very similar to this that went through committee that had these provisions. It also had other provisions that, frankly, we focused on and objected to. This bill does not contain the more objectionable provisions that, frankly, would have allowed mandatory reciprocity of concealed weapons laws, so if you have a concealed weapon in one State, you can take it to any other State, notwithstanding their laws. We focused on that provision because it really blew a hole in the ability of States to maintain their own concealed weapons laws and did not focus as much on this provision that had not been as controversial. I would have preferred that this bill had gone through the regular legislative process. It is probably okay. You will probably find that the police officers that would take advantage of this are not the ones committing crimes, and there would be no problem. But we have a situation here where we are essentially overriding State laws. The State will have to accept concealed weapons from out-of-State, and I am not sure that is a good idea, and we have not had an opportunity this year to focus on it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SCOTT. Does the gentleman just have one speaker left?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have had no deliberation on this. We have not had an opportunity to improve it or amend it. We have not had an opportunity to see what the States think about it. But that is how we have been legislating. We legislated on numerous issues where if we had had time to deliberate, we might have made different decisions, like last night. We passed legislation that had been subject to 2 years of deliberation, the Individuals With Disabilities Act. We passed legislation which that deliberation would have led us to the conclusion that what we did yesterday would have increased crime, but because of good speeches and because it sounded like a good idea, we went along with it. We ought to be more serious about legislation. This might be a good idea, it might not. We have not had an opportunity to seriously consider it. Here we have an amendment on the floor and it is just not the way we ought to respond to the situation in Littleton, Colorado and Conyers, Georgia. We ought to be serious about reducing juvenile crime. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. I will say again, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for making a great speech. Unfortunately, when we consider measures like this we ought to focus on deliberation, not great speeches at the last minute. The fact is that we considered this very proposal for over a year in the deliberations in the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. We had numerous hearings. Teachers, educators, police officers, everybody had their say; advocates; every view was considered. We considered this proposal for over a year. In fact, it was one of the major provisions. It was a provision that, in fact, got most of the attention in the reauthorization. This proposal was rejected after that deliberative process. Now without deliberation, we are subjected to great speeches, and we are trying to change the law on the floor of the House. This did not even go through committee. Here it is on the floor. Now, we heard a lot of talk about may and shall, what happens if they may, and what happens if they shall. Let us go back to where the Individuals with Disabilities Act was passed in the first place. When it was passed, disabled students got no education. Millions of students were given no educational services, and now they get educational services because the law makes them provide it. Now, they talk about a big problem. There is a big problem, Mr. Chairman, and that is because school systems want to stop serving disabled children. They want to kick them out of the classroom and fail to provide any services at all. So of course it is a big problem. They do not want to provide. They do not want to abide by the law. They want to stop serving children. Now, let us get a couple of facts on the table. First of all, the schools can remove the students for public safety. They can take them right out of the classroom just like everybody else, same penalty as everybody else, get them out of the classroom. But they must continue educational services, which may be provided in an alternative school, may be provided at home, might even be provided in prison. They can get the student out of the regular classroom for safety, but they have to continue educational services. Now, everybody knows that stopping the services to children is a bad idea, that the crime rate will go up if we just suspend people without any services. Now, if we are interested in equality, what we ought to be doing is continuing services for everybody else in addition to those under IDEA. Let me remind my colleagues what I said in my opening remarks, a letter from ``Fight Crime/Invest in Kids,'' the National Coalition of Police Chiefs, Prosecutors and Crime Victims said, ``Giving a gun- toting kid an extended vacation from school, and from all responsibility, is soft on offenders and dangerous for everyone else. Please don't give those kids, who most need adult supervision, the unsupervised time to rob, become addicted to drugs, and get their hands on other guns to threaten students when the school bell rings.'' But if we insist on a bad policy for some, please do not change the law to inflict that bad policy on disabled children. The fact is that the children will not disappear when they are suspended from school without services. They remain in the community without support and are more likely to endanger the public. Then what happens after the end of the year, when they come back a year later, further behind than they left? Obviously the schools will not be any safer in that situation. But, finally, Mr. Chairman, this is a juvenile crime bill. We ought to get serious. If this amendment is adopted, the crime rate will go up.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for making a great speech.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I will just read the definition that has been cross-referenced. The term ``dangerous weapon'' means a weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for or readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocketknife with a blade of less than 2\1/2\ inches in length. That would include a baseball bat, Mr. Chairman, and Members know it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for this excellent amendment. Because of her extensive background in juvenile justice, she knows what works and what does not work. We know that education works. Giving young people constructive things to do with their time also works, but also the adult interaction that is embodied in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is perfectly consistent with the amendment that we just adopted and could probably be funded under one of those provisions. But I think it is important to highlight the successes and what the studies have shown about these particular kinds of programs, and for that reason I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for this excellent amendment and urge the Members of Congress and Members of the House to approve it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.