John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I wonder if the Senator from Georgia had the opportunity to see the USA Today lead editorial, which says, ``Harried Workers Need Comp Time's Flexibility.'' I was kind of interested in the way they closed the editorial: A choice between time off and overtime is an option that can benefit employees and employers alike. Their last words: Those who stand in the way deserve a permanent vacation. I recommend this editorial to the Senator.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of ``till death us do part'' seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor John and Rosalie Sorensen of Des Plaines, IL, formerly of Howard's Ridge, MO, who on July 12, 1997, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. The Sorensens' commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield the Senator 1 minute.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, Senator Nickles.

Mr. ASHCROFT. May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in behalf of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. Unfortunately, so many statements about it this afternoon do not reflect the act. They may reflect some attacks on the act or what someone has said about the act, but the truth is this act is a totally voluntary way for employees to cooperate with their employers to provide more flextime, more time for people to spend with their families. This is not some new potential that has never been tried anywhere. We began in 1978 in the Federal Government to offer these kinds of benefits to Government workers. They have been tried in the governmental setting during the 1970's, all through the 1980's, and now through most of the 1990's. I have been in the Senate for a couple years, almost 3 years now, and I have not had a single Federal worker come to me and say this is a terrible means for abusing workers. When you survey those workers, the General Accounting Office, which surveyed the workers, found out that at a 10-1 ratio those workers said this was a very important way to help them accommodate the needs of their families. The Senator from Montana said if Federal Government workers get comptime, so should other workers. Well, Federal Government workers do get comptime and so should other workers. That is what this bill is about. But Federal Government workers get flextime and so should other workers. And that is what this bill is about. Now, I appreciate the patience of Senators on this flextime cloture vote. This is not the way we intended for this to unfold. We have made an effort to reach out to those on the other side of the aisle. We have conferred with them about constructing some amendments because they have raised concerns. Now, when they raised concerns, we sort of thought it would be appropriate if they would bring amendments to the floor to address those concerns. As a matter of fact, no amendment from the Democratic side was offered for consideration--no amendment was offered for consideration. So in an effort to address the concerns, we developed amendments that would meet those concerns that the Democrats had been raising. As soon as we developed those amendments--and there were a number of Senators, and Senator Grassley has already been mentioned on a bankruptcy amendment, there were two amendments about worker choice between comptime and overtime pay, and also amendments about so-called discrimination so to make sure in spite of the fact that the language that is already in the bill that prohibits an employer from selecting a worker to do overtime work because he is one that would only take one kind of compensation or another, we wanted to prohibit that. We not only wanted to reflect their concerns, we were willing to bring our own amendments. There were probably seven or eight amendments yesterday ready to come to the floor to assuage the concerns raised on the Democratic side of the aisle. And what happened? Instead of addressing this bill, they chose to filibuster this bill and talk about other things. I am at a loss, when they talk about the need for two-way cooperation. The Senator from Louisiana comes today. She says she comes to offer amendments and offer thoughts. Well, I got the thoughts part. But we have not had any amendments offered. There has been an opportunity to offer amendments. If you really want to offer amendments, we want them. I stood here on this floor Monday afternoon and pled for people to bring amendments, to come and let us consider them. I stood here yesterday afternoon and pled, ``If you have amendments to this bill, please come and bring them. Let us correct any defects.'' And did they come? No. Yet when we brought amendments to try and address the very problems that they mentioned, they filibustered. They talked about things much as they did today. With the 30 minutes allowed in the bill, the Democrats chose to spend most of the time talking about other things. The truth of the matter is we have a tremendous opportunity to extend to the American workers some very important rights and benefits that are enjoyed by the boardroom folks, the salaried folks, the supervisors and managers of America, and all the Government workers of America have either comptime or comptime and flextime. In enactment after enactment on the floor of this Congress we have extended those rights both to local government workers, to State government workers, to Federal Government workers, and we have reinforced that, and the President has even extended those rights by Executive order. This morning, while I was at the White House for the signing of the IDEA law, the President pulled me aside and said, ``John, there is nothing more important we can do for American families--nothing more important than to provide flexible working arrangements for American families.'' We do want to cooperate. My intention to cooperate will not be extinguished no matter what happens today. I think what we have here is a filibuster to kill flextime without real debate and without offering real changes. It is a search and destroy mission targeted at killing flextime, flextime that would help the men and women of America accommodate the competing needs of their families and their home place. Madam President, 57 Senators who now sit in this body, and Vice President Gore, voted to extend flextime benefits to Federal employees in the last decade and they voted to extend them to State employees and they voted to do it without anywhere near the protections we have put in this bill. The protections simply were not there, and they say that employees cannot make a decision about when they can use their comptime--that simply does not reflect this bill. The bill says that an employee cannot be forced to use his or her comptime at anytime, so the employee makes the decision, and if the employee makes the decision to cash it in, the employee can get the money back. Right now, there are 60 million hourly workers who are waiting for an opportunity to have comptime and flextime benefits. I challenge Senators to match their words with deeds and to vote to give millions of Americans the benefits that Federal workers have enjoyed since the 1970's. Today's cloture vote is far more than it may seem. Every vote against cloture is a vote to kill flextime for millions of working American families. No one defends current law as adequate to meet the needs of today's family, especially President Clinton. As I mentioned before, this morning President Clinton expressed to me his belief that flexible work arrangements are the most important thing we can do for families. The President wants a bill he can sign. I, again, challenge Senators to be serious, start negotiating and stop stalling.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I did ask him to yield for a question.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am very pleased to have the Senator come to the floor and offer this amendment. I would like to clarify the intent of my colleague. I think I understand it. If the comptime accumulated earnings, which might either be paid off at the end of the year as comptime that gets cashed out or might be taken as comptime, as time off--if that is older than 90 days old, under the current law it might not have all the protections in bankruptcy that normal wages would have; is that correct?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So what the Senator is doing is making sure that everything that would be in a comptime or flextime bank in terms of hours would be protected at the highest level of protection as recently earned wages under the bankruptcy law?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I think that is a clear improvement to this measure, in terms of protecting the interests of workers. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his insight and his expertise in this area, which obviously reflects his experience with the bankruptcy laws and his experience in matters of this character.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Objection.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to call the Senate to order under the Pastore rule.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. President, if he is aware of the fact that under the bill that the only way you can be working more than 40 hours a week without overtime compensation is to do so as a result of a voluntary agreement similar to the voluntary agreement which is entered into now by Federal employees with their employers, whereby you can schedule a 40-hour week to average over a 2- week period. Such agreements, in the Federal system for example, provide the basis for people to work 45 hours in the first week and 35 hours in the second week, and have every other Friday off. And absent that kind of voluntary written agreement scheduled in advance, no one can be asked to work more than 40 hours in a week without being paid overtime. As a matter of fact, absent a specific voluntary agreement, all work--all work--is conducted under the bill as if it were conducted without the bill's existence; that only with voluntary agreements is there any change in the way the bill is done. And the voluntary agreement regarding overtime work when it provides for more than 40 hours in 1 week is pursuant to the flexible schedule that is now allowed as a benefit for Federal employees.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator cites 13,000 cases that were resolved or filed in the last year. It seems to me, that demonstrates that there is an enforcement mechanism in place, and that when there are abuses that are undertaken, either under the current law, which obviously isn't perfect, or else there wouldn't be any abuses, you know, I think that is really a wrong statement because you have abuses even under the best laws. The key is whether you have enforcement. Given the fact that you have enforcement and that you have double penalties under the law that has been proposed so that you double the risk for the employer, given the fact that the law talks about the fact that it shall be against the law to have either direct or indirect coercion or intimidation, and given the fact that when you define what coercion is in the bill, you find out that it is to intimidate, threaten, coerce, includes promising to confer or conferring any benefit such as appointment, promotion or compensation, or affecting or threatening to affect any reprisal such as deprivation of appointment, promotion or compensation, don't you think that the measures in the bill provide a safeguard, and that if there are violations they could be pursued just as aggressively under the new framework, which is a framework that is already shared by the Federal Government employees? Could not the enforcement personnel also enforce this kind of law, especially with elevated penalties and the increased description of coercion?

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to participate in this opportunity to celebrate the service of Strom Thurmond. When Abraham Lincoln stood on the battlefield at Gettysburg to memorialize the outstanding service of those who had died there, he put it succinctly: ``The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.'' I do not suggest by my own remarks here this morning that my remarks are long to be remembered. But the service of Strom Thurmond is unforgettable, and is indelibly marked, not only in the history of the Senate but in the States of this great Nation as a part of the development of the character of the United States of America. ``A nation reveals itself,'' said John Kennedy, ``not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.'' And so it is fitting that we should honor the service of Strom Thurmond. For long after his time in the Senate has ended--and the new millennium has begun--Strom will be remembered; not just for the elections that he won, but for the principles upon which he stood, the State he helped to transform, the party he helped to build. For Strom, winning elections became a habit. From the time he ran his first campaign for Edgefield County superintendent to his most recent reelection, his record of electoral accomplishment is unparalleled in our time. The punditry and political operatives have been left to search for the secret to Strom's success. The answer is really quite simple. At its most basic, it is this: His word is his bond. Whether giving up his seat in 1956 to run for reelection without the benefit of incumbency, or switching parties in 1964 to support Barry Goldwater, Strom has been true to himself and to the people he represents. He embodies the very essence of what it means to be a leader, ``decid[ing] where he wants to go, figur[ing] out how to get there, and then do[ing] it.'' But Strom has done more than just win the voters' hearts. He, along with Carroll Campbell, Governor Beasley, Bob Inglis, and others, have helped take a State of low-country planters and usher them into the information age. Today, South Carolina stands as one of America's great success stories, part of the booming South Atlantic seaboard; its factories, office buildings, and airports are at the forefront of the Nation's economic growth. And through it all, Strom has been there. Politically, this new South Carolina has also been moving--more than any other southern State--toward the Republican Party. And if ours is a movement of many mansions, then South Carolina is the house that Strom built. Under his watchful eye, the GOP has controlled the governorship since 1986 and wrested four of the State's six House seats from Democratic rule. Until Senator Thurmond, most would have scoffed at the suggestion that a Republican could win statewide office. But then Strom joined the GOP, and the impossible became the possible. And so today, there are elephants in the cottonfields, and we have Senator Thurmond to thank more than any other. Mr. President, in his lifetime Senator Thurmond has seen tragedy and triumph, known both midnight and high noon. At times, he has been a solitary figure seemingly at odds with the world. More often, however, he has stood for the national interest and the Nation has stood with him. And as South Carolina has flourished, so too, has he grown, coming to see fully the diversity and richness of the American dream. His secret is not what he gets, not what he gives, not what he consumes, but how he serves. In the end, what Douglas Southall Freeman said of Robert Lee four decades ago might also be said of Senator Thurmond today. ``He [is] one of a small company of great men in whom there is no inconsistency to be explained, no enigma to be solved.'' What he appears, he is. Not merely a man of great faith, but a great and faithful friend. A final thought. I often hear the pundits and the national press bemoaning what they call an absence of leadership. Where, they ask, are the Thomas Hart Bentons, the Calhouns, and the Clays? Well, let me suggest that they look to the United States Senate; and there, just beyond the camera's eye, you will find them. They go by Helms, Gramm, Moynihan. And perhaps most of all, Strom Thurmond--the Palmetto State's marble man--a ``figure lost to flesh and blood and bones, frozen into a legend out of life.'' I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.